Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
seba 190.226.132.190 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain, what does "seba" mean? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism deletion request. "Seba" s the diminutive form in Spanish of the name "Sebastián" Cambalachero (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe stolen from image site, Copyright© 2012 Discovery Communications, LLC. Todos los derechos reservados. RE rillke questions? 17:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted - obvious copyvio/derivative Denniss (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted cobra bubbles (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As every other image by the uploader was found to be stolen from somewhere, there is little doubt this one was stolen as well. If the author really took this picture, please provide the high resolution original. Muhandes (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany. 84.61.131.15 18:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: invalid DR, architect of the building died in 1912 so no copyright problem Denniss (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
promotional photo, wrong authorship claims, fake license, no permission Polarlys (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete: This image is an album cover, no doubt copyright to the record company, and there is no evidence that the Flickr user has the right to licence it freely. Ww2censor (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyrighted album cover. Techman224Talk 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
speedy delete per copyrighted derivative image. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
the flickr image in "other versions" claims copyright, no evidence given that uploader holds rights Funfood ␌ 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Windows screenshot of a website, out of scope and unfree logos Funfood ␌ 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
web file that became own work just recently (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Luminarie_canosa.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=65304975), copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name, not in use Vunz (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name not in use Vunz (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
As every other image by the uploader was found to be stolen from somewhere, there is little doubt this one was stolen as well. If the author really took this picture, please provide the high resolution original. Muhandes (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deletted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
As every other image by the uploader was found to be stolen from somewhere, there is little doubt this one was stolen as well. Muhandes (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Wrong license (Date on letter from 1991) and out of scope. Funfood ␌ 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Techman224Talk 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, useless, unused, vector available --ZooFari 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Blleininger (talk)
- Delete per ZooFari.--Pixeltoo (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This will never ever be used. Low quality useless graphic. --ZooFari 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality image and unused, mathematically correct vector exists: File:(2-3)Lissajous curve.svg --ZooFari 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor quality duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Spanish text in a jpg file, out of scope Funfood ␌ 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
garbage image used only in hoax page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Too small, unreadable, out of scope Funfood ␌ 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
small and unused, out of scope, AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
small and unused, out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo only used for a declined article for creation at en.wp - Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-08-02#Masood_Wafayee. Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, no educational content. GeorgHH • talk 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
An unused user image. GeorgHH • talk 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
An unused user image. GeorgHH • talk 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly out of scope? No idea who this is or why we have his headshot. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Not a notable person, so out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image. GeorgHH • talk 22:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. GeorgHH • talk 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused. (see also File:JeanOGunquit.jpg) GeorgHH • talk 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Pre-casted Pre-stressed Hollow Core Slabs.pdf
- File:Spun Concrete High Mast.pdf
- File:Prestressed High Tensioned Concrete Piles.jpg
- File:Prestressed Spun Concrete Transmission Poles.pdf
- File:Precast Prestressed Concrete Hallowcore Slabs.jpg
- File:Prestressed Concrete High Mast Pole.jpg
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Company logos used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The flickr account has a handful of images, all of which appear to have been uploaded to Commons. Though the CC license is as per Flickr, there is no evidence that the original images are there, and most appear widely available on the internet. A bit more evidence for the sourcing is requried, such as a clear description of the original source or a ticket via OTRS.
I would like to bundle with this deletion request the following associated images:
- File:R. Kelly at the 2011 Pre-Grammy Gala.jpg
- File:R. Kelly at 2010 World Cup.jpg
- File:R. Kelly and MGM.jpg
- File:R. Kelly as a child.jpg
- File:R. Kelly at the 2011 Pre-Grammy Gala.jpg
--Fæ (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete For the nominated image, the metadata says "© 2009 Copyright Parrish Lewis. All rights reserved. Author photographer, Parrish Lewis." This image is copyrighted. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is a unfree file, and there are cpoyrights. Vitor Mazuco Msg 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. All images uploaded by User:Çiçek Pasajı were taken from wowturkey.com.
- File:Cicek Pasaji 1.jpg This image was posted to Wowturkey on March 17, 2007 by Baraküda_Turgay.
- File:Cicek Pasaji 2.jpg This image was posted to Wowturkey on March 23, 2007 by Başdoğan.
- File:Cicek Pasaji 3.jpg This image was posted to Wowturkey on March 23, 2007 by Başdoğan.
- File:Cicek Pasaji 4.jpg This image was posted to Wowturkey on February 21, 2007 by Fatoş.
Takabeg (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, seems to be a scan from a magazine, source as stated can not be confirmed (broken link) Capmo (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
not in use in any articles Jetijones (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality and unused raster, vector available at File:LissajousCurve1by2.svg. --ZooFari 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (at thumbnail) and unused raster, vector available at File:LissajousCurve1by2.svg. --ZooFari 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No need for this simple jpg when we have the svg. Techman224Talk 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality and unused, raster available at File:LissajousCurve1by2.svg --ZooFari 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Normally we have to keep the original raster version when a vector version is created from it to maintain the chain of attribution. But here the svg file says that this image is ineligible for copyright, and that seems right to me. So delete per ZooFari. --Quintucket (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF data. A higher-resolution version is here, with EXIF data Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Polski 31.60.181.72 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: invalid DR Denniss (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt the person who uploaded this image to Flickr owns the copyright, as it was taken from a BBC television programme. Epbr123 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- According to the file history, it is available for common use: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license" , and was reviewed already by
|
This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 6 April 2011 by the administrator or reviewer matanya, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date. |
. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Bush_1978.jpg#filehistory --TEHodson (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshot Denniss (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
mobile photo of artwork of unknown source Polarlys (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I am very sceptical of User:Stockmile's claim to be the copyright holder of this notorious video. Infrogmation (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted work. RE rillke questions? 16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:340743 312600815450786 100001026119055 1017657 1128533128 o.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:Academy at Sisters.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Hassanebba (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
See deleted File:DanSoucek1.jpg Soucek said he'd do the OTRS thing, but hasn't; only an informal unclear pasted release not thru OTRS. Let's give him a week or so to do the OTRS thing properly. Elvey (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's frightening that he or his staff are so incompetent or dishonest that they've twice called images of him edicts! --Elvey (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 12#File:KeepOnTruckin'.jpg and en:Keep on Truckin' (comics), it may be necessary to delete this. Stefan4 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - according to en:Keep on Truckin' (comics), copyright was granted on appeal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention this, but the uploader posted a comment about this on my English Wikipedia talk page. Apparently, the uploader meant to upload it to English Wikipedia and meant it to be uploaded as fair use, but it seems that someone else later moved the file here. As Commons doesn't allow fair use, the file needs to be deleted here. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France, Anish Kapoor is still living. Coyau (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It's copyrighted Artwork inside a museum. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per supra. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a copyvio. The picture is scanned from the Smithonian Animal-encyclopedia. It appears in this exact layout in the 2011 edition on page 99. It also appeared in earlier edition, though I don't have the page-number. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete This seems to be a clear case. Frédéric (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Bad source, actual origin unclear Boylarva99 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Weird sourcing for sure - Likely copyright violation - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio. Most of All images uploaded by User:Dario Moreno were taken from wowturkey.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 1.jpg [1] July 21, 2006 by Baki KARAKOÇ
- File:Izmir Alsancak 2.jpg [2] June 22, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 3.jpg [3] June 22, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 4.jpg [4] March 19, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 5.jpg [5] March 19, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 6.jpg [6] March 19, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 7.jpg [7] November 18, 2004 by Denem.
- File:Izmir Alsancak 8.jpg [8] November 18, 2004 by Denem.
- File:Oteller Street Basmane Izmir.jpg this image originally taken from Izmir Metropolitan Municipality] was posted to Wowturkey on September 19, 2005 by Mehmet Yasa.
- File:Gürel Residence and Hilton Hotel in Izmir.jpg (Panoramio © All Rights Reserved: gunelvalar, but gunelvalar took from Commons) This image was posted to Wowturkey June 18, 2007 by Hakan Aydin.
But I couldn't find evidence for:
- File:Izmir Clock Tower.jpg
- File:Izmir from Konak Pier.jpg (Panoramio © All Rights Reserved: gunelvalar, but gunelvalar took from Commons)
- File:Pasaport Quay in Izmir.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say delete them all. If I can't find a decent replacement for the clock tower, Konak Pier, and Pasaport Quay on Google Images (and I bet I can), I'll take some myself, since I know where those are. I'll try to figure out where in Alsancak the others come from and replace them too. (I wish I had a decent digital camera, or at least hadn't left my nice film camera in the states.)
- By the way, in the future, do you think it would be possible for you to notify me when you nominate pictures from Turkey for copyright violations? I've been saving the ones you nominate to my hard drive, so I can try to find or make replacements. --Quintucket (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Cuthbert Bradley, the artist, died in 1943 and is hence still under copyright in the UK, the country of origin. It should not have been transferred from EN Wiki Rcbutcher (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Cuthbert Bradley, the artist, died in 1943 and is hence still under copyright in the UK, the country of origin. It should not have been transferred from EN Wiki Rcbutcher (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
George Fothergill, the artist, died in 1945 and is hence still under copyright in the UK, the country of origin. It should not have been transferred from EN Wiki Rcbutcher (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
George Fothergill, the artist, died in 1945 and is hence still under copyright in the UK, the country of origin. It should not have been transferred from EN Wiki Rcbutcher (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Jean de Paléologue died in 1942 and hence may not be uploaded to Commons until 2013. It should not have been transferred from EN Wiki, and should be restored there. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The author, Max Beerbohm, died in 1956, hence his work may not be uploaded to Commons until 2027. Should not have been transferred from EN Wiki, and should be restored there. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The author, Max Beerbohm, died in 1956, hence his work may not be uploaded to Commons until 2027. Should not have been transferred from EN Wiki, and should be restored there. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The author, George Fothergill, died in 1945, hence his work may not be uploaded to Commons until 2016. Should not have been transferred from EN Wiki, and should be restored there. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The author, Max Beerbohm, died in 1956, hence his work may not be uploaded to Commons until 2027. Should not have been transferred from EN Wiki, and should be restored there. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously a scan from a printed picture (see moire patterns), presumably from a copyrighted catalogue or similar. I do not believe that Joho345 is the author of this photo. Afrank99 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted? work. RE rillke questions? 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- The photo has been taken by me, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianodazzan (talk • contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did not doubt that you are the photographer. Quality photo in my view. However, it is product packaging. See also Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. -- RE rillke questions? 15:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: this image, at a lower resolution is sourced to the university from this webpage specifically this image but there is no evidence the uploader has the right to licence the image freely. Ww2censor (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
fake 90.164.159.33 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Denmark. 84.61.131.15 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Utilitarian architecture.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)- Keep -- Agree with User:Ryulong --Katarighe (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't believe that a teacup ride counts as a building. Ryulong, could you please add a description to the image? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Building or not, but this is utility object (see Commons:Image casebook#Utility_objects) which main purpose is moving people, and its aesthetics is secondary, not unlike cars. --M5 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. MBisanz talk 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Previously kept because someone thought that it is purely utilitarian. However, it is irrelevant if something is utilitarian or not. Danish copyright law doesn't differ between utilitarian objects and non-utilitarian objects. See COM:TOO#Denmark: this is more complex than both the knife and the chair (which are both copyrighted in Denmark), and thus you can't take photos of it. COM:UA only describes the situation in the United Kingdom, the United States and a few other countries, but not the situation in Denmark. Stefan4 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a vehicle, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a vehicle and a knife or a chair? There's no chance that this vehicle is in the public domain in Denmark unless its "author" has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- A vehicle may be building and thus covered by freedom of panorama. Quoting from the commented, preliminary version of the law ("Revision af Ophavsretslovgivningen, slutbetænkning fra udvalget vedrørende revision af ophavsretslovgivningen", betænkning nr. 1997, Copenhagen, 1990, page 180), the term buildings in the context of Danish freedom of panorama includes not only houses and similar, but also bridges, ships and similar structures. So why not this thing?
And regarding utilitarian objects, while they may very well be copyrighted, the requirements for something to be a derivative work are stricter. I do not think it is clear whether a photograph of a utilitarian object is a derivative work. Peter Alberti (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)- Assuming that you mean betænkning nr. 1197 (not 1997), then yes, this sounds reasonable. Apart from bridges and ships, the document tells that
- A vehicle may be building and thus covered by freedom of panorama. Quoting from the commented, preliminary version of the law ("Revision af Ophavsretslovgivningen, slutbetænkning fra udvalget vedrørende revision af ophavsretslovgivningen", betænkning nr. 1997, Copenhagen, 1990, page 180), the term buildings in the context of Danish freedom of panorama includes not only houses and similar, but also bridges, ships and similar structures. So why not this thing?
- What's the difference between a vehicle and a knife or a chair? There's no chance that this vehicle is in the public domain in Denmark unless its "author" has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Bestemmelsen må ses på baggrund af, at sådanne bygninger indgår i de miljøer, hvori mennesker færdes, på en så integreret måde, at det i praksis ville være umuligt at håndhæve og adminstrere nogen anden regel.
- All utilitarian objects (such as chairs and knives) are included in those kinds of environments. Shall this mean that all utilitarian objects are to be treated as "buildings", then?
- Reading further down on the page, I see this statement:
Det skal dog her understreges, at reglen ikke indebærer nogen indskrænkning i ophavsmandens ret til i overensstemmelse med god skik at få sit navn angivet i forbindelse med afbildningen, jfr. forslaget til §11.
- I'm not sure how "god skik" is interpreted in Denmark, but in Sweden (where the law uses the the similar wording "god sed"), courts seem to have decided that you don't have to include the name of the author of a work if it would be unreasonably hard for you to find the name of the author. Thus, I'd assume that the vehicle designer has to be attributed if you know who the designer is, but that you can leave out his name if you have no simple way of finding his name and that lack of the name of the author isn't a reason for deletion but that it always is better if the name is provided somewhere on the file information page. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see what could get a copyright here. Yann (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United States. 84.61.131.15 18:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is architectural work. --M5 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United States. 84.61.131.15 18:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United States. 84.61.131.15 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, these are buildings. --M5 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Polarlys tagged this as missing permission. But I think this is below the threshold of originality and does not need a permission, so I've started this deletion request to get a decision. Rosenzweig τ 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Barbara Mamabolo at TIFF 2009.jpg Bobbymatches (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given for deletion. Tabercil (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep And speedly. Tm (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
unidentified building in unidentified location, small image AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
obvious copyright violation, tv series promo material, 29000 google results Polarlys (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the 3D effect of the @ character is way too complicated. The shading on the other letters also looks suspicious. Much more complex than the examples eligible for copyright at COM:TOO#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator --Sreejith K (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Very small and license wrong - mobile phones older than 70 years? Funfood ␌ 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This file was uploaded by en:User:Ayça Leovinus on March 28, 2007. And This original image was posted to Wowturkey on November 6, 2005 by ayça_leovinus (in wowturkey.com). en:User:Ayça Leovinus in English Wikipedia was one of the sockpuppets of en:User:Shuppiluliuma. As long as I understand by comparing contribution of User:Ayça Leovinus and ayça_leovinus. Especially field of interest of ayça_leovinus (architecture, archaeology etc) is very different from User:Ayça Leovinus (military etc). On the one hand, in wowturkey.com some users called ayça_leovinus "Ayça Hanım" (Mrs. Ayça, generally Ayça is female name), on the other hand it's clear that en:User:Ayça Leovinus should be male. So I think User:Ayça Leovinus used the name of ayça_leovinus to upload this image and User:Ayça Leovinus doesn't have any right on this image. Takabeg (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
quality is too low to use as documentation for any subject. as a work of art it doesnt seem to pass either Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Burj al-Arab images
[edit]There is no FOP in the UAE, and hence these are not able to be hosted on Commons.
- File:Burj al arab9.jpg
- File:Burj al arab7.jpg
- File:Burj al arab4.jpg
- File:Burj al arab6.jpg
- File:Burj al arab3.jpg
- File:Burj al arab2.jpg
- File:Burj dubai2.jpg
- File:Burj dubai.jpg
- File:Burj alarab from wild wadi.jpg
russavia (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj_Khalifa[edit]There is no FOP in the UAE, and thence these images can't be hosted on Commons.
russavia (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Hi, First of all, thanks for reviewing some articles on wikimedia. To be honest, I have not understood yet the problem with some of my pictures and I haven't got any further explanation on your words (I could see something on the "FOP" link you left) I guess you mean that there are some policies related to the buildings on UAE that my images don't follow. I can say that I took some pictures in there and I have't asked anyone on the UAE if he/she mind about using images of his country. I didn't know I was breaking some rules (I just wanted to contribute with some of my pictures) but in that case, I hardly believe that all of the pictures of the UAE shown on Commons are following that directives So, if it is possible, I just want to know what's the difference between my pictures and "almost every other" picture of UAE shown on wikicommons Thanks for your help, --KeDaO (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 2[edit]No FOP in the UAE
russavia (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 3[edit]No COM:FOP in the UAE.
russavia (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 4[edit]No FOP in the UAE
russavia (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 5[edit]No FOP in the UAE russavia (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 6[edit]No COM:FOP in the UAE for buildings.
russavia (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 7[edit]Copyrighted building exteriors and interiors. No Freedom of Panorama in UAE.
Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Burj Khalifa and Dubai Metro perfect timing.JPG and Tallest tower vs. the palm trees (5373615733).jpg could be de minimis. I'm not a judge, where is the border between permissibility and copyright violation? --Ras67 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Deleted four, kept two per DM. --Krd 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 8[edit]Copyrighted building in UAE which has no freedom of panorama.
Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination --Krd 11:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 9[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! None of this buildings are free to photograph!
Ras67 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 10[edit]Building under copyright, no Freedom of Panorama.
Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Sealle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 11[edit]The same as usual: no COM:FOP.
HyperGaruda (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Deleted per nomination. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 12[edit]Can we have some clarification as to why these illustrations of a copyrighted building are okay for commons? I don't know how the rules apply here. The copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted, but maybe there's some exception I don't understand. Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per above: this is clearly a reproduction of the architectural work. Guanaco (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 13[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! Ras67 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Deleted per nomination --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 14[edit]No freedom of panorama in the UAE Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 15[edit]no FoP in the UAE Saqib (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Deleted - per nomination - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 16[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!
Ras67 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I believe there is no copyright to these public images in the UAE .Category:Burj Khalifa. Is it possible to give us one reason to delete these images which are public photos and there is nothing wrong with posting them here!?.Usamasaad 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted - per nomination. Kept only File:Fog on Burj Khalifah.Dubai. - panoramio.jpg and File:برج خليفة في دبي2.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 17[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!
Ras67 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 18[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Burj Khalifa was designed by Adrian Smith.
Ras67 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. It is not de minimis if what is being photographed is the main subject of the photograph. The entry way would still be part of the copyright and we cannot keep any of these. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 19[edit]No FOP in UAE
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.png){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajous_curve.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Lissajous_curve.svg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.png){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.png){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
Lissajouskurva.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr95/Baki_KARAKOC_izmiralsancak2.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr52/MehmetYasa35_alsancak_sokaklar_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr52/MehmetYasa35_alsancak_sokaklar_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr41/MehmetYasa35_alsancak_muzaffer_izgu_sokak.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr41/MehmetYasa35_alsancak_gazi_kadinlar_sokagi.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr41/MehmetYasa35_alsancak_1448_sokak.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr31/Denem_alsancak_evleri_8.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr31/Denem_alsancak_evleri_4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_tower.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 20
[edit]Derived work from copyrighted photos/buildings/designs what we cannot host here! We need the permission of the actual creators for a free licencing of their work.
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 04.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 05.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 06.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 07.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 08.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 10.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 12.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 13.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 01.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 02.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 03.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 04.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 05.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 06.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 08.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 09.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 10.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 11.jpg
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete as derivative work copyvios. No permissions or OTRS authorizations from model creators, images uploaded by a problematic user (who has uploaded dozens of DW/no FOP violations, as seen in their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per COM:FOP UAE. Uncensored Burj Khalifa is not something we should ever host in Commons until Adrian Smith gets a bail. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per COM:FOP UAE. All the above photos are of copyrighted works of some sort - the architecture or museum exhibits. -M.nelson (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 21
[edit]To the 21st one and eternal further, no freedom of panorama in UAE! Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights? It seems to me, that the rest of the world is not interested in this case. IMHO the skylines are copyrighted too.
- File:084-DSC07190 (25199382909).jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (15514231368).jpg Delete Other copyrighted building is too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (16260269606).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (48393167816).jpg Delete Other copyrighted building is too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (48393239271).jpg Delete Other copyrighted building is too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (48393322877).jpg Delete Burj Khalifa is main object. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa -4 (10764135213).jpg Delete Burj Khalifa is main object. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa Dubai UAE (14159904937).jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa Fountain - Downtown Dubai (6985576394).jpg Delete Other copyrighted building is too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Downtown Dubai skylines (Pexels 2403251).jpg
Unsure Other copyrighted buildings are too prominent, but I think it's general cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) - File:Dubai Burj Arab Burj Khalifa Mall UAE - 043 (15656282153).jpg Keep Focus changed to the garden--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- This must be renamed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Rename request send - you could do it in the time of writing your comment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- This must be renamed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Fountain show (Pexels 692105).jpg Keep Focus changed to the fountain--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:DUBAI IN COLORS.jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai mall-2011-7.JPG Delete Other copyrighted buildings are too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai mall1.jpg Keep Focus changed to the lake--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Night Time (Pexels-804915).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines (Pexels 1537493).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines Alex Azabache (Pexels 3214995).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines Alex Azabache (Pexels 3848412).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines at night (Pexels 3787839).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines at night (Pexels 3787840).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines Night (Pexels 804915).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai skyscrapers at night 2011.jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai skyscrapers.jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai street view.jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Sunset (5614220391).jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Unsplash suv4vuJsH6g).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Flying from Burjkhalifa.jpg Keep Main object is a bird. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Fog on Burj Khalifah.Dubai. - panoramio.jpg Keep COM:DM per previous discussion--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - not really de minimis. The title implies the image's main intention: the tower itself. See also Explicit closing input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giant Rubber Duck invades Pittsburgh (10023967385).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @JWilz12345: If so, we can change this file name and keep this file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: And we can also undelete deleted file and rename deleted file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:Fountain (4067634603).jpg Keep Focus changed to the fountain--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Jaguar C-X17 crossover concept in Dubai (10818367515).jpg Keep COM:DM: Focus is on the car--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Jaguar C-X17 crossover concept in Dubai (10818386576).jpg Keep COM:DM: Focus is on the car--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Jaguar C-X17 crossover concept in Dubai (10818644523).jpg Keep COM:DM: Focus is on the car--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- The illuminated background is an essential part of the photos and not a casual element. The whole background consists of copyrighted skyscrapers. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67:
Comment I think main object in this image is the car. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Panoramic of Dubai - Nov 2009.JPG Keep COM:DM per previous discussion--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:People taking photos of Burj Khalifa at night.jpg Keep Main object is a smartphone. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, the main object is the Burj Khalifa seeing in the smartphone. Without the Burj the picture would not have been taken in this manner. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Come on - just a general skyline of Dubai in the smartphone. Besides, it could just as well have been any other city in the world. --Botev (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Scene outside Dubai Mall (4067633027).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Skyline Downtown Dubai 140514-2096-jikatu (14167168656).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg Keep COM:DM per previous discussion--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Souk Al Bahar @ Downtown Dubai (15691803028).jpg Delete Other copyrighted buildings are too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Sunset of Dubai Terrace.jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Taking photos of Burj Khalifa.jpg Keep Main object is a smartphone. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- No, the main object is the Burj Khalifa seeing in the smartphone. Without the Burj the picture would not have been taken in this manner. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:Tall buildings in Dubai Alex Azabache (Pexels 3254725).jpg Unsure Other copyrighted buildings are too prominent, but I think it's general cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
** Delete this Pexels-sourced derivative work. focus is on tall buildings. Not a skyline image: for UAE, only true skyline images are fine for unrestricted commercial reuses. See also this Adobe help guide, which lists copyrighted buildings and artworks, their copyright holders or authors, and permitted use in images meant for stock/commercial reuses without authors' licensing permission. For both Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab, skyline image is only allowed, not close cityscape images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @JWilz12345: I read this page carefully. In this page, I found this sentence. "Cityscape, skyline, or vista photos may be acceptable if no single building is the primary subject." It means that both cityscape photos and skyline photos are allowed. And this page contains outdated content. For example, Atomium in Belgium is allowed now because Belgium has freedom of panorama now, but this page explains that Atomium is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: slashed my vdel input. While the page is outdated for Atomium, it is still relevant for Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab, as long as there is no acceptable FOP from UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I read this page carefully. In this page, I found this sentence. "Cityscape, skyline, or vista photos may be acceptable if no single building is the primary subject." It means that both cityscape photos and skyline photos are allowed. And this page contains outdated content. For example, Atomium in Belgium is allowed now because Belgium has freedom of panorama now, but this page explains that Atomium is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:Tall buildings in Dubai at night (Pexels 1381722).jpg Unsure Other copyrighted buildings are too prominent, but I think it's general cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:The Bottom Part of the World's Tallest Building (9827329494).jpg Delete Burj Khalifa is main object. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:The Burj Khalifa from the East at sunrise (16398415591).jpg Keep General skylines--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Burj Khalifa from the East at sunrise... - see Explicit's input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giant Rubber Duck invades Pittsburgh (10023967385).jpg. The file name already establishes the image's intention: to include Burj Khalifa. The rest of the skyline seems insignificant (making the tower the chief motif). Cropping that tower away will leave this image as redundant to other good Dubai skyline images we already hold. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:The Dubai Fountain & Burj Khalifa Pixabay.jpg Delete Burj Khalifa is too prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: Focus changed to the lake. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:The tallest building.jpg Delete Burj Khalifa is main object. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:View of Dubai (Unsplash Zf8fagTPYTo).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- File:एक इमारत जो सपनो को हौसला देती है और जज़्बो को हिम्मत- बुर्ज ख़लीफ़ा - UAE.jpg Keep COM:DM per previous discussion--A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67: Keep Already in past discussions, it has been concluded that some images were kept covered by DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Comment In my opinion, some of other files you didn't marked maybe to be kept. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: You may also mark those you think can be kept. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections (except those given keep reasons by A1Cafel or Ox1997cow). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel and Jeff G.: I marked whether delete or keep. I will respectfully accept any objection. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the skylines are not {{Deminimis}}. Every building in these images is copyrighted, it's not in the "sense" of the law to "stack" copyrighted objects and so make them free. The "deminimised" objects have to be "nonessential" and "casual" elements, what is not the case in the skyline photographs. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67: Comment Already in past discussion, it has been concluded that the skylines are DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67:
- Comment @Jeff G., Ox1997cow, A1Cafel, and Ras67: if some of the images are skylines, then why categorize them here in the first place??! IMO they should be removed from this "reddish" category and confined only to Category:Skylines in Dubai. Once I inquired Bidgee about removal of FoP templates on categories of objects from countries FOP (User talk:Bidgee/Archive13#FoP templates), and they replied that it only causes clutter. They added: "if there was no FoP, there shouldn't be a category for the object/item/building/memorial/statue etc." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Lack of freedom of panorama does not mean that we cannot create categories of copyrighted buildings or sculptures. So, why does categories of copyrighted games exist? (Such as Category:StarCraft, Category:Overwatch, Category:Call of Duty, etc...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the skyline photo incidentally contains copyrighted buildings, these photos are allowed under de minimis. Categories of buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama exist for this kind of situation. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: see Category:Sólfar (a copyrighted sculpture in Iceland, with all files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sólfar). See also Category:SM City San Pedro. For buildings, they can go under Category:Buildings in Dubai or Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. This category has been abused IMO, and it seems new uploaders ignore warnings on top. Also if the category needs to be nuked, this should be locked until the year the building falls PD or UAE changes their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: That's an extreme case. When uploading to the category of copyrighted things, there is no problem if we follow the warning and upload. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: By the way, why are you taking the extreme case and giving it as an example? In the previous deletion discussion, you used that only examples of misuse of NoFoP templates were taken as examples, and you claimed that all NoFoP templates should be changed with something like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: the simple answer is that the {{NoUploads}} are, in my opinion, ineffective. I doubt most uploaders will understand what the template means in relation to copyrighted FOP-reliant works: works like buildings, sculptures, statues, monuments, memorials, and public murals/frescoes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: My opinion is different. The reason is that many users don't know that freedom of panorama varies by country. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: the simple answer is that the {{NoUploads}} are, in my opinion, ineffective. I doubt most uploaders will understand what the template means in relation to copyrighted FOP-reliant works: works like buildings, sculptures, statues, monuments, memorials, and public murals/frescoes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: see Category:Sólfar (a copyrighted sculpture in Iceland, with all files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sólfar). See also Category:SM City San Pedro. For buildings, they can go under Category:Buildings in Dubai or Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. This category has been abused IMO, and it seems new uploaders ignore warnings on top. Also if the category needs to be nuked, this should be locked until the year the building falls PD or UAE changes their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete
allwhere Burj Khalifa is prominent per COM:FOP UAE. Uncensored Burj Khalifa is not something we should ever host in Commons until Adrian Smith gets a bail. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974:
Oppose Some images were kept due to DM before. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Burj Khalifa should be a trivial landmark (i.e. should not be at the centre of an image) per COM:DM, but it is too prominent in most of the listed images. Apologies for !voting all listed images to delete without seeing them individually. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974: I and A1Cafel have already marked "deleted" and "kept" on images that are likely to be deleted and images that are likely to be kept. Also, already in the previous deletion discussion, it was concluded that the skyline image is DM as the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some skyline images are under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa-related. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974: I and A1Cafel have already marked "deleted" and "kept" on images that are likely to be deleted and images that are likely to be kept. Also, already in the previous deletion discussion, it was concluded that the skyline image is DM as the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Burj Khalifa should be a trivial landmark (i.e. should not be at the centre of an image) per COM:DM, but it is too prominent in most of the listed images. Apologies for !voting all listed images to delete without seeing them individually. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
To end all this mess because of limited exception (broadcasting programs only) in UAE copyright law, are there any attempts by Wikipedians in UAE and Arab Wikipedians to have FOP introduced in the desert kingdom? At the very least, FOP for architecture only (similar to US and Russian exceptions)? @A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, Ras67, Botev, Jeff G., and Soumya-8974: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I'm sorry, but I've never heard of such a thing. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights" note that I do not care about Adrian Smith's right, I do not care about UAE law. If I nominate things for deletion I do it to protect users of Commons. This law is unjust, though if for some reason I would have influence on UAE I would start from far worse laws being present there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well said. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
And for this nomination: keep everything, nominate actually problematic ones for a proper review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep as indiscriminate. Cut out any skyline pictures, they are clearly de minimis. Individually nominate the rest. We aren’t here to “right great wrongs” by protecting the copyright of an architect who has low enough ethical standards to work in a country where being gay is illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: followed remarks of @Ox1997cow and A1Cafel: and many thanks for your efforts. In some case followed arguments of other users. General skylines kept according consensus. Thanks all for your efforts. --Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 22
[edit]The architecture is copyrighted e.g. by Adrian Smith, see COM:TOYS!
Ras67 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67: Delete They are clearly {{Copyvio}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete derivative work copyright violation: appears to be toys or small-scale models. May also fulfill User:Elcobbola/Models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:TOYS--A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
deleted, per nomination and discussion. Elly (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Burj Khalifa 23
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, per COM:FOP UAE. The Burj Khalifa is still copyrighted. Also derivatives (such as lego models) are copyrighted. Reason: the building was completed in 2008.
- File:084-DSC07190 (25199382909).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is blurry. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa (48393167816).jpg
- File:Burj Khalifa (48393322877).jpg
- File:Burj Khalifa (8276722353).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is not prominent. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This image is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Burj Khalifa (worlds tallest building) and the Dubai skyline (25781049892).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa -4 (10764135213).jpg
- File:Burj Khalifa -5 (10764136183).jpg
- File:Burj Khalifa Fountain - Downtown Dubai (6985576394).jpg
- File:Burj Khalifa from a ferry, Dubai.jpg Keep General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa from the sea, Dubai.jpg Keep General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa IMG 5776 (25901811255).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa Interpretation Centre.jpg
- File:Downtown Dubai skylines (Pexels 2403251).jpg
- File:Dubai (11535337084).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is blurry and General Road View. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Burj Khalifa (40219696641).jpg Keep General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:DUBAI IN COLORS.jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai mall-2011-7.JPG
- File:Dubai Police Agusta A-109K-2 in flight at sunset.jpg Keep Main object is a helicopter. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Chronus (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)- File:Dubai skyline 2010.jpg Keep General cityscape photo. Chronus (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines Alex Azabache (Pexels 3214995).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines Alex Azabache (Pexels 3848412).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines at night (Pexels 3787839).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Skylines at night (Pexels 3787840).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai skyscrapers at night 2011.jpg Keep General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai skyscrapers.jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai street view (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai street view.jpg Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai Sunset (5614220391).jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Unsplash suv4vuJsH6g).jpg Keep General aerial view. Ox1997cow Ox1997cow (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Lego Architecture Dubai.jpg
- File:Lego burj khalifa 21008.jpg
- File:Lego burj khalifa 21031.jpg
File:Muslims looking at Burj Khalifa.jpg. Is cropped to remove largest part of building.- File:Panoramic of Dubai - Nov 2009.JPG Keep General cityscape. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Scene outside Dubai Mall (4067633027).jpg Keep Main object is a lake. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Souk Al Bahar @ Downtown Dubai (15691803028).jpg Keep cropped and now Burj Khalifa is not prominent. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:The Bottom Part of the World's Tallest Building (9827329494).jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 02.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 03.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 06.jpg
- File:The tallest building.jpg
- File:एक इमारत जो सपनो को हौसला देती है और जज़्बो को हिम्मत- बुर्ज ख़लीफ़ा - UAE.jpg Keep Burj Khalifa is silhouette and General skyline. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
_and_the_Dubai_skyline_(25781049892).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Elly (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree not to delete File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg, because the tower is blackened and details cannot be seen. Elly (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all but File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all but Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg and Dubai street view (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg, where I have blackened the tower. I will black the other instances of Burj Khalifa in Commons. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have blacked out एक इमारत जो सपनो को हौसला देती है और जज़्बो को हिम्मत- बुर्ज ख़लीफ़ा (censored) - UAE.jpg (Hindi for "A building that gives encouragement to dreams and courage to the spirit - Burj Khalifa (censored) - UAE") as a separate file. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like File:Muslims looking at Burj Khalifa.jpg has correctly been withdrawn from this nomination for deletion. If so, shouldn't the deletion nomination tags be removed from the file? I wanted to check so as to not risk taking a unilateral action someone might object to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
_-_UAE.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete all except File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Could some of these image be covered under the de minimis exception? --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Surely most/all those other buildings are subject to copyright as well. Either all buildings in this image (including Burj Khalifa) de minimis or all are subject to copyright restrictions, no? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Already the decision has been made that the single buildings might be copyrighted but the whole panorama is not. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: That was my understanding as well - so I didn't see the need to black out the tower in that image. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Dubai including the Burj Khalifa would be useful? -- 06:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- And we can make a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Seoul including Lotte World Tower. (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, too.) Ox1997cow (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow and Themightyquill: impractical, and can lead to abuse. The best approach is that all skyline inages must be categorized under Category:Skylines in Dubai and similar categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I don't think it's impractical, but I suspect you're right about leading to abuse. Just a thought - I'm not determined. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow and Themightyquill: impractical, and can lead to abuse. The best approach is that all skyline inages must be categorized under Category:Skylines in Dubai and similar categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Dubai including the Burj Khalifa would be useful? -- 06:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: That was my understanding as well - so I didn't see the need to black out the tower in that image. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Already the decision has been made that the single buildings might be copyrighted but the whole panorama is not. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have marked {{vk}} on images that can obviously applied de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: I have signed your markings for you. Please sign such markings yourself in the future. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Oh, that's my mistake. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Has anyone contacted Adrian Smith to request permission? If so, then I'm assuming he said no? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- If I've not misheard, Adrian Smith is currently in a jail in Saudi Arabia. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974 and Ixfd64: for a more eternal or longterm approach, has anyone including Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in UAE have taken steps to introduce FOP there, at least "for buildings only" (yellow countries)? I expect dozens of more copyvio images to be uploaded here, including: this one. I'm not sure if people aren't aware of no FOP there or just intentionally "testing our no-FOP policy on UAE". I would also want to suggest filtering out exactly the words "Burj Khalifa" so that new users will no longer be able to upload images either containing the said words in their file names or in their file descriptions, at least temporarily (while UAE has no FOP for photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- If I've not misheard, Adrian Smith is currently in a jail in Saudi Arabia. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Excessive file name restrictions are bad. Suppose someone uploaded a file name of the Dubai Skyline with Burj Khalifa as "Remote view of Burj Khalifa". Skyline photos with Burj Khalifa are allowed even if there is no freedom of panorama in UAE, as last deletion discussion concluded that they were OK. If you ban the use of "Burj Khalifa" in file names, we won't be able to upload acceptable skyline or cityscape photos. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: And many people do not know freedom of panorama. I also mistakenly thought that the copyright of a building or sculpture photo belonged to the person who took it, until I saw numerous photos of the building or sculpture deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: no, de minimis photos can still be uploaded, thru titles like "Dubai skyline 20211103.JPG", "Skyline of Dubai, UAE as seen from the Marina in 2019.jpg." If images bearing such file names continue to be uploaded, the location filled with millions of deleted files from late-2006 may become "crowded" in the very distant future. Besides files do not get "deleted" in real life, but rather all "deleted" files are still there, just hidden from non-admins (as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on his reply here). See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Image undeletion on the mechanism of files deleted on Wikipedia (which also applies to all Wiki sites). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: And many people do not know freedom of panorama. I also mistakenly thought that the copyright of a building or sculpture photo belonged to the person who took it, until I saw numerous photos of the building or sculpture deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: You're thinking too extreme. A lot of users will use the copyrighted building name in the file name, but can we ban the copyrighted building name in the file name? And did you think about typos? (For example, "Bur Kalifa", "Buri Khaljfa", etc.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I've known you're an extreme claimant since you had the deletion discussion related NoFoP templates. Even in that discussion, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace. Even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: I look on longterm solutions and not "band-aid" solutions. Thus it is best to filter out such names. Actually Commons has already did a version of what you call very extreme approach: indefinite protection of file names that is comonly misused. Example: File:Burj Khalifa.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- That approach of locking the file name prompted me to suggest such. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I've known you're an extreme claimant since you had the deletion discussion related NoFoP templates. Even in that discussion, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace. Even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Keep that in mind. Such long-term solutions can hurt many users. Even though it is forbidden to use only "Burj Khalifa" in a file name, I know that using a file name containing "Burj Khalifa" is difficult to ban. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: and also take note of COM:CARES. The copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Keep that in mind. Such long-term solutions can hurt many users. Even though it is forbidden to use only "Burj Khalifa" in a file name, I know that using a file name containing "Burj Khalifa" is difficult to ban. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Soumya-8974: I couldn't find anything about Adrian Smith being incarcerated. His article on the English Wikipedia doesn't say anything either. Could you provide a source? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! I have probably misheard a piece of news related to the still-unfinished Jeddah Tower, also designed by Adrian Smith. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- As a compromise, how about using the edit filter to just warn the user if they try to upload a picture containing the name? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ixfd64: It's not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa from a ferry, Dubai.jpg Keep General skyline despite the name. —Jpbowen (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- File:Burj Khalifa from the sea, Dubai.jpg Keep General skyline despite the name. —Jpbowen (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa Interpretation Centre.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep skyline images. De minimis use of the Burj Khalifa, there’s a precedent for this. The freedom of panorama page of English Wikipedia literally shows a skyline in a non-FOP country. I struggle to see why the images that just show the base aren’t de minimis but that’s not my expertise. The blacked-out version is artistically interesting but a ridiculous solution to a nonexistent problem (buildings are not more copyrighted because they’re famous and impossible not to notice in a generic panorama!) Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept General DR like this one is clearly not helpful. Yann (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arbroathhiphop (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work. If it is own work, please follow COM:OTRS. Thank you.
RE rillke questions? 16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Album cover and promo photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Please create tables with MediaWiki. See en:Help:Table
RE rillke questions? 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
espagne 88.167.110.17 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete: image is sourced to the university from this webpage specifically this image and no evidence the uploader can licence the image freely Ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
unlikely own work by uploader. http://www.google.de/search?tbm=isch&hl=de&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=898&q=Shakira+Latin+Grammy+Punainen+Matto&gbv=2&oq=Shakira+Latin+Grammy+Punainen+Matto&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1140l1140l0l1968l1l1l0l0l0l0l63l63l1l1l0#hl=de&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Shakira+Latin+Grammy&oq=Shakira+Latin+Grammy&aq=f&aqi=g3g-S2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=13516l13516l0l13906l1l1l0l0l0l0l203l203l2-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2e16b45821a46692&biw=1280&bih=898 --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to be a simple arrangement of text. Is this copyrightable? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. It is the logo of this organization.--Rapsar (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple for copyright. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by IP 91.61.119.68 for "Verlagseigentum" (transl. "owned by editor", likely meant "of the book from where it was scanned"). --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Image shows an advertisement from 1874, which was likely copyrighted by the Lambertz-Bakery, but not by the editor who put it in his book. Reproduction of 2-dimensional works doesn't give copyright to the scanning person. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No piece of this is copyrightable, the balzons / coat of arms are from earlier i think. So no problem with this file. --Quedel (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per above, copyright has expired. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright for this file couldn't expired. This logo is about 6 years old. Xjr (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Very unlikely to have been taken by the uploader in the 1930s. More likely is from http://susieharries.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/birmingham-in-the-garden1.jpg. Possibly PD-UK-unknown. ELEKHHT 03:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Commons:Licensing#Norway "Photos of works of art exhibited in public spaces can only be used for non-commercial purposes" and so the image is not usable on commons. Funfood ␌ 12:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
bad quality, unused Polarlys (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not any information. The user him/herself blanked the page Wouter (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DW of a pic from here http://bibliotecadigital.ilce.edu.mx/sites/ciencia/volumen2/ciencia3/072/htm/sec_5.htm, rights unclear Funfood ␌ 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
School logos of Category:Padada,_Davao_del_Sur
[edit]3 files - 3 times own work claimed - but by two authors: user:Browneyespercy or by user:QuecyKeith. Who is the logo designer? I guess none of both. ;-) Permission from the organization needed.
- File:SMSP LOGO.JPG (uploaded by QuecyKeith and speedy requested by Q.)
- File:SMSP LOGO.jpg
- File:SMSP School Logo.jpg (uploaded by B. and speedy requested by B. ("I browneyespercy the creator of these file want to transfer these file to my other account QuecyKeith"))
Saibo (Δ) 05:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please...Kindly, do not delete the files because broweyespercy, and QuecyKeith are the same person...
- I uploaded the files first through browneyespercy and I guess it is the logo designer...I'm very sorry and I admit that its my fault and that I should had upload it in that same account...Further notice or instructions regarding these matter is highly appreciated...Thank you very much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuecyKeith (talk • contribs) 2012-01-14T06:25:58 (UTC)
- Hi QuecyKeith, thanks for your message here (I have styled it a bit in the usual way). So who designed the logo, who is the author? What did you make? Did you just make a photo of the school's logo or are you an employee of this school? You do not need to make any details public - you can send a message to OTRS from the school's official email address and confirm. Please just reply here if you want to. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Saibo...Thanks for your kindness and consideration...The author and designer of the logo is QuecyKeith because i want the logos to be in one account. Also, I've already request deletion on that logo at my browneyespercy account...Please...kindly, do not delete the File:SMSP LOGO.jpg because it is the original version of the school logo...I'm not connected in that school, my wife either graduated at that school and she often attended in their yearly Alumni and I've found out that their school wasn't yet in the WikiPedia and so I am challenged to voluntarily make the article...— Preceding unsigned comment added by QuecyKeith (talk • contribs) 2012-01-15T09:42:13 (UTC)
- Hi QuecyKeith, okay, but, still, you have not answered that questions of my last post here right above yours. Thanks for your help! --Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Maintainance close: 2 files since deleted as user-requested and 1 (rightly) as copyvio. Badseed talk 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by non-transparent SVG version(s). Cycn (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 08:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
promo photo/crop of promo material → possible copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Boswell Sisters-Concentratin On You.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Hand Me Down My Walking Cane.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-I Found a Million-Dollar Baby in the Five and Ten-Cent Store.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-I Hate Myself.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Louisiana Hayride.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Lawd You Made the Night Too Long.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Lullaby of Broadway.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Minnie The Moochers Wedding Day.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-The Object of my Affection.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-The Old Man of the Mountain.ogg
- File:Boswell Sisters-Were On The Highway To Heaven.ogg
The underlying composition is not yet PD in the United States. It's "Copyright 1931 (Renewed 1958) and Assigned to Famous Music Corporation, EMI Mills Music Inc. and Indigo Mood Music c/o The Songwriters Guild of America", according to the Hal Leonard Real Book. Also, sound recordings cannot be unquestionably considered PD in the United States due to various state-level legislations (example), unless of course the author explicitly releases the recording into the public domain. I'm nominating all of Category:Audio files of the Boswell Sisters since the same issue concerns all of those files. Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
image licensing presumably incorrect (should be a PD-Italy) Threecharlie (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality. . HombreDHojalata.talk 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This looks way more complex than the deleted examples at COM:TOO#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I've uploaded a fair-use variation to the English Wikipedia. Cloudbound (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please use en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly instead of copyright tags with fair use rationales when uploading these kinds of logos to English Wikipedia. The template was created for a reason and copyrighted templates mean that images are copyrighted in the United States, which is not the case here; they are only copyrighted in the source country. The situation is exactly the same as with en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad which isn't accompanied by a fair use rationale. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.131.15 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Sad but true. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- ???
This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on November 18, 2011 by the administrator or reviewer File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) isn't a human. )) Kobac (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:FOP#Russia. Alpertron (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Lissajous_curve.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lissajous_curve.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality image; mathematically correct vector exists: File:(2-3)Lissajous curve.svg --ZooFari 06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Lissajous_curve.png){kind=link}
I concur. Though as the author of the SVG I cannot claim that the curve there is absolutely mathematically correct, it was a manual trace of an earlier bitmap image. I created the present higher resolution .PNG to replace that earlier image.
Gregors (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Lissajous_curve.png){kind=link}
- No worries, I've uploaded a new version with more precise coordinates. I'll also make them a bit more consistent with other similar files in terms of image dimensions and border thickness if you don't mind ;) --ZooFari 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low-quality; author consents to deletion. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Lissajous_curve.png){kind=link}
Is superceded by File:World countries Standard & Poor's ratings.png (which is also superceded btw). Yikrazuul (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - it would seem like a good idea to keep some historical data around. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- But this file itselft was subject to one update...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Pieter Kuiper; historical info is well within project scope. That info is no longer up to date is not a reason to delete; unless there is some other reason, Keep -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm neutral in this matter. If it's going to be kept for historical reasons, then I think it should be renamed to include the date it refers to, to avoid mixup with the continuously updated version. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Historical data is still within scope. Can be renamed if appropriate. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio.
- This image was posted to wowturkey on March 3, 2003 by MeReK (in wowturkey).
- I'm not sure but MeRek in wowturkey could be User:Mehmet Kerem Tuncay in Wikimedia, because Mehmet Kerem Tuncay uploaded only MeReK's works.
- Furthermore, de:Benutzer:Batman85 shew tendency to uploaod non-own works. As long as I understand, all files uploaded by de:Benutzer:Batman85 in German Wikipedia (de:Datei:Gfg1gf6a161fg6sg16as.jpg, de:Datei:54972779 358c450ec2 b.jpg, de:Datei:54971517 201275f149 b.jpg, de:Datei:54971027 7625b6b292 b.jpg, de:Datei:54970663 1f08adf8b8 b.jpg, de:Datei:54367769 2dbed7ffe1 b.jpg) are "All Rights Reserved" in flickr.com.
- Anyway there is no proof for {{Own work}} of de:Benutzer:Batman85 (Derya Aydin). Takabeg (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of permission. I tried to find some way to tag the images on German Wikipedia and found de:Template:DÜP which I used. Hopefully, it's the correct template to use in cases like this. Not sure if I should somehow notify the user on German Wikipedia or how to do this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- To Stefan: Yes, the de:Template:DÜP is the right template to set. The uploader will be notified then. The template should set to all problematic files. --Quedel (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The cited source does not have this image or anything at all on Louis Boekhout. The cited source is not licensed CC-SA. THe cited author is not the uploader and no evidence of permission is given. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jim
Louis Boekhout really had his own web page as can be seen by the webcache as of 23 dec 2011 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o8aVxYub2foJ:www.repertoirecultureloutaouais.ca/louisboekhout+%22Louis+Boekhout%22&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=ca
and it was still up when I uploaded the photo on Commons. The webmaster must have removed the page since Louis Boekhout passed away a few days ago. As you can tell from the webcache, the page contained Louis Boekhout's contact info like his home address, phone number, e-mail address. And since his passing, he obviously can no longer be contacted.
That being said, according to the Canadian Copyright Act, Louis Boekhout is deemed to be the owner of the photograph and copyright holder of his own portrait (person by whom photograph/portrait is ordered), and can use it as he pleases, even commercially. His web page is commercial use, because it is an advertisement of his services and products. And in publicity matters, getting known and recognized is the goal.
Furthermore, the Canadian Privacy Acts also apply. All personal information belongs to the individual, no matter where that information is located, or who holds it. This means that a photograph of an individual can be freely used by that individual, even commercially, no matter who took the picture.
However, in cases where models/mannequins are photographed against retribution, the terms of the contract have precedence.
Canadian Photographers Coalition Lobbyists are complaining against Canadian Copyright Legislation!
Canadian newspapers, magazines, TV stations cannot publish an individual's picture without that person's consent, even if their staff took the pictures. When a person's picture appears in Canadian media, it is after consent was granted. It is usually verbal consent.
There are some exceptions to the Privacy Acts, for example, public figures' pictures can be published by the media without their consent, since they are in the public eye, their information falls under the "Right to Know" principles (Access to Information Legislations).
Yesterday, regional media published the news about Louis Boekhout's passing. They consider this as the public's right to know.
Since Louis Boekhout arrived in Chénéville (QC) in 1969 various media have interviewed him over the years. An authorized biography has been written, and is scheduled for publication in the near future.
In short, this is the situation. Hope this helps,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tw6GFHjD1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Vdz7W87GU
--Bouleau (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but since you are relatively new user (257 global edits, 24 on Commons), we need more evidence than your assertions.
- According to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people permission is not required for photographs of people in Canada in public places. If that is incorrect, this is not the place for the discussion. In any event, it is moot -- if such a rule exists, it would call for deletion of the image, not retention.
- Commons:Licensing#Canada and the law itself says nothing about copyright of photographs of people automatically transferring to the subject. There is a work for hire provision at 13(2) and 13(3), but for that to be effective you will have to show that this image was ordered and paid for. This does not look like a professional photograph -- it is poorly lighted and has a confusing background.
- And, finally, even if the image did appear on the source site when you uploaded it, the source site is not licensed CC-SA or with any other free license, so even if Boekhout did own the copyright, it was not properly licensed at the source.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination. The use of an image as promotion for the subject's services and products does not automatically mean that the image is freely licensed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
upper part seems to be photographed from a screen, thereby a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I'm pretty sure the authorship is incorrect, as with all the other Shakira uploads from this user. It looks like it came from the same concert as File:Shakira-03.JPG. --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Polish Wikipedia, self-promotion -> Out of scope. Takabeg (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does the Commons have an anti self-promotion rule? On one hand, it should. On the other hand, it's a great picture of a smug-looking white man in a business suit, in a decent resolution, and he says we can do anything with it... --Quintucket (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have information on "self-promotion" rule in Commons (apart from the section: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose in Commons:Project scope). However, many images were deleted by this reason. Most of cases, articles were deleted with the reason of lack of notability in each Wikimedia projects. Commons:Project scope can be applied. Takabeg (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Istanbul Modern 187 3382 honeyroastd.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern 187 3392 honeyroastd.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern Sarkis mrfuse.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern1 franzconde.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern12 mrfuse.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern13 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern14 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern15 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern16 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern17 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern18 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern20 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern21 ognjenodobasic.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern24 honeyroastd.jpg
- File:Istanbul Modern7 rachaelvoorhees.jpg
Art. 40. of the Turkish copyright allows "FoP" only for works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares.
- Turkish Copyright Law (Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu)
Takabeg (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, File:Istanbul Modern1 franzconde.jpg and File:Istanbul Modern7 rachaelvoorhees.jpg, being outside, would seem not to violate Turkish FOP laws.
- "Art. 40. Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form."
- This would seem to indicate that those two pictures also don't violate Turkish de minimus laws, however they do violate United States law (and the Wikimedia is incorporated in the USA) especially since based on the title they are taken not to represent the museum front and the sky but the works specifically. I'm not sure which takes precedence, but I'd probably say to just delete them under the precautionary principle unless someone has a really good reason not to. --Quintucket (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, the condision of allowance in the Turkish copyright law is slightly different from others. In related section of the article 40. they especially and intentionally use terms "public streets, avenues or squares" (Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlar). We can find in terms such as open spaces and/or public premises (Umuma açık mahaller) in other sections. Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlar are included in Umuma açık mahaller. But Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlar are not equal to Umuma açık mahaller. Even Turkish-speaking users sometimes confuse them. Takabeg (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure I understand the distinction. But could you tell me about the legal status of a few pictures I've been meaning to take.
- The front of the Izmir Archeology Museum (and once it's reopened, the Ethnography Museum, which is in the same courtyard), which is unless the building is older than 70 years? It's visible from a walkway that I think is on museum property, but not from the street, you have to go right up to the courtyard between the Archeology and Ethnography museums to see it.
- The municipal office buildings, or complex (I forget what they're called, though they start with an "m". Mürdüğlu?), from the square that requires one to pass through security?
- The inside of public transit buildings, such as iskelesi and train stations?
- The inside of malls and piers (not inside the stores, the storefronts), which don't include artwork, but do include logos and such?
- The inside of a Migros?
- Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form (Bu salâhiyet mimarlık eserlerinde yalnız dış şekli munhasırdır.). Takabeg (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- So first two = yes, last three = no? Interiors of government buildings are a no-go (not that I care about any except the ferries and train stations)? What about signs/train tracks on outdoor metro stations? And what about Migros, since there's no architecture visible, assuming I'm taking pictures of the aisles? --Quintucket (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form (Bu salâhiyet mimarlık eserlerinde yalnız dış şekli munhasırdır.). Takabeg (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The arguments of Takabeg sound very solid to me, and even if in some cases, already pointed out by Quintucket, one could argue that the photos depict "public" spaces and/or they could be kept evoking Commons:De minimis , I think we should follow the precautionary principle. I apologise for forgetting that copyrights apply not only to the authors of the photos, but also to what it's shown in the photos, when I uploaded them. I'll try to be more careful next times.
- PS: @Takabeg: don't bother notifying me if you find more photos uploaded by me that are unappropriated, as I have them of my watched pages and I couldn't agree more with the fine job you are doing pointing out copyright violations. --Stegop (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete On photographs taken indoors, otherwise keep. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 07:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I got permission to upload this photo when I still had contact with the author. I should have gone through OTRS in the first place to confirm this, but I didn't know that at the time. I no longer have contact with the author and thus I can't confirm his permission to use this image. Therefore I nominate this image for deletion. Tooga (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hej Tooga! We don't normally require uploaders to reconfirm permissions for files uploaded before OTRS was established, unless there is some reason to doubt the permission. COM:OTRS was created in late 2006, but I don't think it was widely used yet when you uploaded this in April 2007. If you're comfortable that the author understood and agreed to the permission requirements (to allow anyone to use the photo with or without modifications for any purpose, including commercial purposes), then I see no reason not to take your word for it. If you're not sure, I think we should respect that and delete the file. So, are you nominating it for deletion more as a formality, or because you actually have doubts about the permission's actual validity? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made it very clear to the author that the image could be used for every purpose, even commercially, and got the authors permission. So yes, this is more as a formality and a way for me to be sure I don't have any legal disputes about this in the future. Mainly considering this is one of two images I've uploaded that haven't made myself. The other image is from the 1912 Olympics (File:1912 Ragnar Wicksell.JPG), and thus I do not worry about it.
- There is actually another issue, however vauge, with this image that I've thought about it. It could be argued that the tifo displayed in the image is copyrighted art. This would also put another of my images at risk. (File:Aik tifo at Råsunda 080424.jpg) It's not art which is permanently displayed, and thus freedom of panorama does not apply. What do you think about this issue, LX? Tooga (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- On File:Derby at Söderstadion 280806.JPG, I'd say that any copyrightable material in the tifo is at such an angle and such a small part of the overall composition that it should be considered de minimis. The banner at the bottom is {{PD-text}}, so there's nothing copyrightable about that. I don't think there's any real issue here. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing what the tifo on File:Aik tifo at Råsunda 080424.jpg is supposed to depict, but I don't there's anything copyrightable about it (apart from the photography itself). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::::In that case, I don't think there are any issues left for me to worry about. As the nominator, change my stance to Keep. Tooga (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't put this matter to rest if the image is still around. I've created a free alternative for this image myself, so Wikipedia won't have to suffer from this one being deleted. (See File:Söderstadion Pitch and north stand.jpg) Please, I ask of any admin who might see this deletion request to delete the image. I'm currently trying clean up any legal question marks (although it is unlikely I'll ever find myself in a legal dispute due to my images here on commons) in my upload history, and this one is a priority because it isn't taken by myself. Tooga (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm not closing this one as "kept" because of the author request for deletion, but I'm really uncomfortable with deleting a free image when it's so widely used. If it's free, it's free, right?. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. Uploader request FASTILY (TALK) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Photos by Parikas brothers
[edit]Author info, source or inscription "Parikas" admittedly means that the photo is by Johannes Parikas (†1958) and/or Peeter Parikas (†1972). Photos are tagged as {{PD-old}}, but the copyright hasn't really expired yet.
- File:August Kitzberg.jpg
- File:Artur Adson.jpg
- File:Erni Hiir.jpg
- File:Johannes Semper.jpg
- File:Marie Under.jpg
- File:Valli Eller born Neuhaus.jpg
--88.196.241.249 15:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikedKentaur (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Added File:Esimene EV saadik Ameerika Ühendriikides (1923 - 1925) prof Ants Piip, ERM Fk 2731-1341.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
_prof_Ants_Piip,_ERM_Fk_2731-1341.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Still. This image was uploaded by the son of Valli Eller (same user created the article in Estonian Wikipedia). So this is taken from a personal archive. Kruusamägi (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Bizarre magazine images
[edit]- File:Betty Page in Bizarre Magazine.jpg
- File:John Willie Bizarre Whipping at Fence.jpg
- File:John Willie spreader arms illustration.jpg
- File:BDSM Cage images.jpg
- File:John Willie - G String Tie.png
- File:John Willie Spanking Machine.jpg
- File:John Willie femdom whipping illustration.jpg
- File:JW bdsm sketch.jpg
- File:Spreader bar and tiptoes.png
- File:Cinching Corset in BDSM.jpg
- File:Damsels in distress.jpg
- File:John Willie - Stockings Leashed to Ceiling.jpg
- File:French maid in hair bondage.png
- File:Femdom Strappado.jpg
- File:Figure-training BDSM painting.jpg
- File:Woman tied to stake for BDSM whipping.jpg
- File:Ravenhaired woman tied to tree and whipped.jpg
- File:John Willie tied to trees illustration.jpg
- File:Femdom tied to tree.jpg
- File:Coquette tied to post.gif
- File:John-willie-girls-in-stocks.jpg
- File:John Willie Watercolour with Tree.jpg
- File:Chairtied BDSM painting.jpg
- File:Femdom Spanking Art.jpg
- File:Dropped Glove punishment in BDSM.jpg
- File:Lg image of scolds bridle.jpg
- File:Tied Blonde in Abandoned House.jpg
The copyright for Bizarre magazine is owned by Belier Press; see CSN0019858 at the US Copyright Catalog[9] --Handcuffed (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is a copyright for Bizarre Comix which was started publication in 1975 per Amazon -- [10]. The American Bizarre Magazine related to John Willie and Irving Klaw was published in the 40s and 50s -- Foetusized (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know there was a difference. If this is true, then it's fine, since it doesn't seem to have been renewed. Handcuffed (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- So is there any reson not to close this as "kept"? - Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't know there was a difference. If this is true, then it's fine, since it doesn't seem to have been renewed. Handcuffed (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept --Denniss (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan: outdoor artwork may only be used for non-commercial purposes. ja:さっぽろ羊ヶ丘展望台 tells that the statue was erected there in 1976. File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg can maybe be kept as de minimis. Note that three of the photos were uploaded by a deceased editor.
- File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitious.jpg
- File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitiousCropped.jpg
- File:ClarkPhoto.jpg
- File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg
- File:Hitujigaoka boys be.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I commented on this over at en-wiki. Copying part of it: I found out that the sculptor of the Hitsujigaoka statue was Tandō Saka (kanji: 坂 坦道, hiragana: さか たんどう） from this link, and then from his studio website I found out that he died in 1998. Judging from COM:FOP#Japan, it looks like the statue will become public domain in 2048, but for now I assume the copyright is held by his relatives. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I added Category:Undelete in 2049 because the year of death is known. He died in 1998, so the statue will be copyrighted until the end of 2048. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm the uploader of File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg. For File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg, it should be kept as de minimis. The statue is well-known especially among Japanese people. If the listed files were all deleted, Japanese wikipedia users would feel strange and the deletion might cause confusion in Japanese wikipedia project.In fact, many pictures of the statue are taken and used for any purpose. And I haven't heard the copyright holder claims copyright violation even for commercial use.--Ykso (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg can probably be kept as de minimis, but I included it with the other ones for completion. All other ones need to be deleted. Japanese Wikipedia allows fair use of outdoors artwork (see the Exemption Doctrine Policy and the unfree licence template for outdoors artwork). I made sure to upload images locally to Japanese Wikipedia if used there, but left out your picture because I think it might pass as de minimis. Updating year of undeletion in the "Undelete in YYYY" template because of URAA. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This artistic work is "permanently located". But whether Hitsujigaoka observatory is considered as an "open place accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public", is up for debate. Takabeg (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Article 46 limits the usage of artworks to non-commercial purposes: 専ら美術の著作物の複製物の販売を目的として複製し、又はその複製物を販売する場合. The observatory can be accessed by anyone by paying a single coin, which is sufficient in some countries. If the statue isn't sufficiently accessible, ja:Template:屋外美術 might not apply, making them invalid for Japanese Wikipedia. However, the non-commercial restriction makes them incompatible with Commons regardless of whether the hill is accessible to the public or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Article 46 limits the usage of artworks to non-commercial purposes:
- 専ら means "solely", "entirely", "wholly", "exclusively". The paragraph 4 of the article 46 says "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies." If the observatory is considered as the place thta can be accessed easily, these image can be kept. But in some parks such as The Expo’70 Commemorative Park there is the prohibition on taking photographs. Takabeg (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is an interesting observation. I looked at both versions (English and Japanese) and didn't think of what effect exclusively/moppara would have. I think that you may have a point: if someone takes a photo and uploads a photo to Commons, the purpose for taking the photo would usually not be exclusively for the purpose of selling copies of it, but there would also be other purposes such as illustrating a Wikipedia article. This could mean that Commons images are exempt from the non-commercial requirement. Since this would affect some policies (at least COM:FOP#Japan and ja:Wikipedia:屋外美術を被写体とする写真の利用方針), I think that this discussion should be announced more publicly. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Actually not only in Wikimedia Projects but in real world, someone who wants to use it freely, explains that Article 46 may allow taking photographs freely, on the other hand someone who claims his/her copyrights explains that the Article 46 may prohibit taking photographs or allow only taking photographs but don't allow distribute photographs. Considering the risks, I personally think we have not to permit them. In any case, I think 写り込み (when the concerned subject is not as main subject) should be permitted. Takabeg (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- That is an interesting observation. I looked at both versions (English and Japanese) and didn't think of what effect exclusively/moppara would have. I think that you may have a point: if someone takes a photo and uploads a photo to Commons, the purpose for taking the photo would usually not be exclusively for the purpose of selling copies of it, but there would also be other purposes such as illustrating a Wikipedia article. This could mean that Commons images are exempt from the non-commercial requirement. Since this would affect some policies (at least COM:FOP#Japan and ja:Wikipedia:屋外美術を被写体とする写真の利用方針), I think that this discussion should be announced more publicly. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, except for File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg where the artwork is de minimis. The paragraph 4 of the article 46 prevents the uploading to Commons of photos in which this statue is the centrepiece, because they are not freely re-usable. The existence of such photos on the Commons itself is not legally problematic, but that is not the point here. Allowing free re-use of all collected material without any restrictions is the core purpose of this project and since Commons cannot legally grant free re-use of the mentioned photos, they cannot stay here. — Yerpo Eh? 13:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I have deleted them all -- in File:Hitsujigaoka.jpg it is not de minimis as the statue is the only thing in the image beside an indistinct skyline -- it is clearly the principal subject of the image.
Many countries allow FOP for NC use and we forbid such images in all of them. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 1976. [11]
G I Chandor (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)