Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_2011_12_26.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate image is available at File:Thenmala_eco_park1.jpg Anoopan (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Pleae delete this file--Fotokannan (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as dupe Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
delete 124.123.90.179 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment and the reason is...? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- delete Wiki01 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 18:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What does this user page have to do with anything? And if you're talking about the images on that page, you should review and nominate them individually; I don't think sunsets are protected by copyright in the UAE. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I see no point to this at all, and frankly I think there has been enough discourtesy to LoverOfDubai as it is, without wiping out his/her userspace as well. If an image is copyrighted, it should be nominated for deletion; those that are deleted have and will be de-linked upon deletion. CT Cooper · talk 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Keep_an_eye_on_IP_84.61.131.15 VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Nonsensical, disruptive and pointy nomination by a single-purpose anonymous user. Commons:Freedom of panorama contains no reasons whatsoever for deleting user pages. (Speedy non-admin closure.) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't remove the links to the deleted images Image:Burj Al Arab Interior on 25 December 2007 Pict 1.jpg and Image:Burj Al Arab Interior on 25 December 2007 Pict 2.jpg from this page. 84.61.131.15 16:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Why do you want to remove the links to images on another person's user page. Ok, these were deleted, but so what. In addition to that it's trivial to remove the link to an image, anybody can do that. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the abuse filter doesn't allow editing of user pages by unregistered users. --84.61.131.15 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not being able to edit user's page within registration is not a reason for deletion of that user's page. Speedy Keep. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not being able to edit user's page within registration is not a reason for deletion of that user's page. Speedy
- Sorry, but the abuse filter doesn't allow editing of user pages by unregistered users. --84.61.131.15 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring the images which haven't been deleted, it appears that some of the links to the deleted images have been removed by bots, and a few haven't. I will be bold and remove the dead links, while leaving the active ones, but outright deletion of the userpage is not appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I stand by my original closing of the deletion request 100%, and I'd do it again. Given that eight four six one one three one one five would probably just reopen the request and I have no desire for an edit war, I'll leave that to someone else, though. Eight four six one one three one one five has not offered any valid reason whatsoever for deleting the user page – neither in the original discussion, nor after reopening the request. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Note that the user's IP address has changed to 84.61.139.62 (talk · contribs), and might well have moved on again now. CT Cooper · talk 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, See previous Keep by LX. Nom individual images is OK but not a whole userpage because some images there may have to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Authors request, not used file, other better files available WhiteWriter speaks 16:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, not used anywhere mickit 15:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, many better alternatives in Category:Salicylic acid. Leyo 12:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
unused logo, low quality and out of COM:PS AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Source has nothing to do with image, link leeds to a financial website Funfood ␌ 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment not to mention the image is hardly usable, couldn't it be renamed? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Maybe in scope. Seems to be a notable author from Spain: [1] -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then Keep, thanks for the information. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
PS Is also known in Italy, it seems...
- Then
Kept. Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted promotional image; see [2] Handcuffed (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete agreed with nom. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof for {{Own}}. The same image was used in the website of the Federation of Associations of Trabzon on January 4, 2008. Takabeg (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice image, but there is no "own work" claim, and to me it looks like a scan (see bottom left corner). The low-res upload was 8 years after the event, and there is no metadata. Of the four files this uploader contributed, two were explicitly marked "own work", and the other was from another source without evidence of permission (I've tagged it). So, alas, this smells like a copyvio to me. (To the contrary, I didn't find an obvious source on the web, but evidence is tough to find after twelve/four years.) 99of9 (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Apart from the misleading statement (the millennium actually changed between 2000 and 2001 not between 1999 and 2000), the picture is clearly a scan. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation since it is a derivative work with no treshold of originality. Image is a collage of "meme" images, and there is no evidence that all, if not any, of these images are licensed under a free license such as CC. The "trollface" image, for example, is copyright by its original author "Whynne" from DeviantArt. Image also contains a poorly vectored image of Yao Ming copyrighted by the Associated Press, and the poorly vectorised Obama image is also likely to be copyrighted. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OOS, no possible encyclopedic value. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 05:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
AP photo - incorrectly licensed on Flickr. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - it says so in the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
ThIs file doesnt likeme. 189.152.16.6 03:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment make me understand ... the file doesn't like you ? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Error en nombre de referencia de archivo. Nombre de archivo distinto al articulo. Samuel.duarte (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete indeed, out of scope. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
promotional material plenty of pictures whos copyright unknown Motopark (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for me a clear copyvio without OTRS and probably out of scope. --Herby talk thyme 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Even if copyright was confirmed, this is out of scope as blatant advertisement. Jafeluv (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per the abovementioned reasons. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The PDF in question describes the assignment a professor gave her students for using Wikipedia in the classroom. It's featured on outreach:Education/The_Syllabus#Syllabus_collection_from_past_terms. This resource is used by hundreds of professors who are looking to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool in their classes as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's outreach:Wikipedia Education Program. Please keep the file on Commons. I've posted the same thing at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DavisWPAssignment.pdf. Ldavis (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The PDF in question describes the assignment a professor gave her students for using Wikipedia in the classroom. It's featured on outreach:Education/The_Syllabus#Syllabus_collection_from_past_terms. This resource is used by hundreds of professors who are looking to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool in their classes as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's outreach:Wikipedia Education Program. Please keep the file on Commons. I've posted the same thing at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DavisPostWPAssignment.pdf. Ldavis (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
most likely not own work, wrong date, same resolution available on the internet before this was uploaded here Polarlys (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
blatant copyvio, see http://www.infoservices.com/moscow/map/kremli8.html (c) 1997 Infoservices International Polarlys (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copyvio, indeed. NNW (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully commercial work (broadwayworld.com, no author mentioned), license seems unclear. --César (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the page the picture is taken from: http://losangeles.broadwayworld.com/article/Bichir_to_Star_in_Geffens_By_The_Waters_of_Babylon_20080828 ("All Materials Copyright 2011 Wisdom Digital Media"). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. Tbhotch™ 23:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's a copyvio but there's no educational purpose since article company was deleted at pt.wiki per lack of notability. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Purely promotional. --P199 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose since article company was deleted at pt.wiki per lack of notability. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Purely promotional. --P199 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable band, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable band, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable band, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
image was only used in a deleted article about a German car seller's website (autohaus24.de), don't see any use in keeping it -- :bdk: 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO#UK. The word "SOUTHERN" is written in yellow on a green rectangle with a light green circle behind the rectangle. This looks way more complex than the EDGE logo which was found to be copyrighted in a British court. Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Would using this layout and color scheme with the word "WESTERN" be a copyright violation? I find that hard to imagine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
because of not proper uploads Haijeminish (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
logo Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. De minimis? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand what's the problem here, since it's not a building or something like this, just a bus stop? JeanBono (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why are bue stops PD? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? No metadata, low resolution, professional image... -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Sri_Aurobindo_presiding_over_a_meeting_of_the_Nationalists_after_the_Surat_Congress,_with_Tilak_speaking,_1907.jpg
[edit]
"This work is in the public domain in India because its term of copyright has expired." but without date of first publication. May be unfree Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-India. Yann (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering the watermark, no evidence that the subject of the picture is copyright holder. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete From the site mentioned on the watermark: "Copyright © FILLED HOLES by Gerald Saunders - Spungy Gunk Films Offical Blog!" VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Romania Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Romania. Probably not de minimis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The stamp shows a copyrighted work of art. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See template. Yann (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The explicit licensing statement given is only if the image is unchanged. PD (or any other "free enough for commons" license) must also allow derivative works and other alterations. DMacks (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless the licence statement is clarified. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree license Lymantria (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Label of beer bottle, doubtfully own work, license unclear Funfood ␌ 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader provides a suitable licence. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of free license or copyleft granted by original author. The burden of proof is on the uploader. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Popular internet meme, no one have the rights of this image! JozeSlb (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This is de facto in the public domain even if the "original" posting can't be found. If it's determined to be a non-free file it should be hosted on Wikipedia instead. See en:Rage comic and related nominations Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forever Alone.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Me-gusta-original.png. – Pnm (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not making a fair-use argument for keeping it on Commons. It's an orphan work. It's impossible to locate the original contributor. Again, that person shared the work for the purpose of being used and re-used. That said, if Commons has no way to accommodate that, I think there's a fair-use argument for hosting it on Wikipedia as a non-free file with an unknown license. – Pnm (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - popular internet meme, it seems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of free license or copyleft granted by original author. The burden of proof is on the uploader. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Popular internet meme, no one have the rights of this image! JozeSlb (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is an intentionally repurposable image. Isn't there some precedent for images for which an explicit license can't be found, but which have copied and modified so much that they are de facto in the public domain? If this file is determined to be non-free, it should be hosted as a non-free file on Wikipedia. – Pnm (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not making a fair-use argument for keeping it on Commons. It's an orphan work. It's impossible to locate the original contributor. Again, that person shared the work for the purpose of being used and re-used. That said, if Commons has no way to accommodate that, I think there's a fair-use argument for hosting it on Wikipedia as a non-free file with an unknown license. – Pnm (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Does this file qualify for this license {{PD-ineligible}}?
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Second page says: All rights reserved. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, copyright problem: (C) 2009 GJ/MB/USU. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is an alternative in an appropriate file format. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I, the uploader, request deletion of this image, as I have created a new version of this file with much better quality, saved as File:Warner_Brothers_cartoon_icons.png. SethAllen623 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of authorship or date of creation, so is possibly still copyrighted. Adabow (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep http://thebiblerevival.com/clipart.htm says it is free, and they clearly concentrate on images that are {{PD-1923}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 19:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 19:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: low image resolution and no valid EXIF information High Contrast (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 19:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio? Svajcr (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: So it would seem. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry image which does not really serve any purpose or represent anything. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In COM:SCOPE, as this picture is used on en:Stagecoach Manchester. Dereckson (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:2011centrepompidou04.jpg
- File:2011centrepompidou05.jpg
- File:2011centrepompidou06.jpg
- File:2011centrepompidou07.jpg
No Freedom of panorama in France. Does the images meet the Threshold of originality? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Most of them show Paris as seen from the centre. The parts of the centre that you see on the images could be seen as minimal, except for the last image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. None of these pics can qualify as de minimis in my opinion: the photographer chose to show both the corridor and Paris. Threshold of originality is a stronger point, but the corridor as represented proved to be instantly recognised by people to whom I showed the pictures, so I preferred to err on the side of caution. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted image: File:Anitkabir.DO.jpg Takabeg (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of copyrighted works, fails FOP/de minimis. —SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is my own photograph --Yjenith (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The design of the bottle has its own copyright and it cannot be deemed as de-minimis Sreejith K (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This image is so definitely not useless (it's a great representation of a teenage male nipple) that i don't even know how to counter such a blatant lie. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that Joshb simply misunderstands how DR work, so i have asked him to clarify. I would appreciate it if we would wait for his answer. I am willing to entertain some possibilities that it was just a misunderstanding, and that the user isn't trying to game the DR system. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of permission seems plausible, and keeping body images against the subject's wishes seems like a bad practice, except in a very rare exceptional case where the specific image has value that would be difficult to replace. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per VolodyA! V Anarhist. It's not like the picture was just uploaded, it's been on Commons for more than 3 years. The second revision should be deleted though, it has no source. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment On one's talk page Joshb now claims that the images were uploaded from this account without permission. I think that admins should investigate this, because this seems to be happening a lot lately, seeing how recently there's been a bunch of users claiming to have stuff uploaded from their accounts like that, and the fact that photos are clearly different i am personally more inclined to believe that somebody is bruteforcing the passwords on old-forgotten accounts which have ever uploaded images they disagree with. But i have no way to check this, so the admin should look into that (there are logs aren't there?). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You uploaded it several years ago, you can't come along now and tell us it was done without your permission. Free licences cannot be revoked. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please delete this picture and the rest on my account that i nominated? Joshb (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While this can be considered a replacement, it's not as high of the quality. If we would have a similar image i would vote delete, but until such time a non-revokable licence + educational image = keep. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep non revokeable licence; plus no personality rights infringed. I don't see any reason why this image should be deleted. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily Kept - per my last closure, turning up 3 years after you uploaded it and claiming you didn't give permission is frankly a poor joke. This isn't a photosharing service, once you release images here you cannot say "oh no I didn't mean that", especially not three years after the fact. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remove my photos. I am the original uploader of the photos and I want them deleted. Please delete. Thanks Joshb (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You do not engage in discussions, you ignore people who attempt to communicate with you about the deletion requests, you simply keep nominating, hoping that eventually people will get tired. There is no reason for deletion so far, i am getting tired of this. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily kept - per comments above. --Denniss (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And the reason is....? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} licence seems to be unlikely: low image resolution and no EXIF data. Unkely that it is own work. --High Contrast (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, in this case Delete -- Blackcat (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 01:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not Maurice Papon who is left on the photo. This man is unknown therefore this crop is useless/out of scope (bad quality) Kyro (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Per above, but now the picture in no mor in use. Kyro (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I made a mistake by cropping the wrong man - I apologize. So who is the correct Papon? The man sitting on the left? Can I crop his photo instead of this one? Thank you, Ravit (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, its the man on the left ! Kyro (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I made a new crop: File:Maurice Papon 1.JPG. You can delete this one. Thanks, Ravit (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, its the man on the left ! Kyro (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Help desk
Personal files uploaded by VanessaGriffith
[edit]- File:Editss.jpg
- File:Mehhhhh.jpg
- File:Smileeeee.jpg
- File:Just post a photo.jpg
- File:Im a cutie queen.jpg
- File:Aww sweet.jpg
- File:Me Edit.jpg
- File:Vanessa Griffith (ME).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Low-quality personal photos, without any obvious educational use (out of project scope). --Razvan Socol (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. Personal unused out-of-scope photos. --P199 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Maps_of_the_Moscow_Kremlin
[edit]original file is a blatant copyvio, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plano del Kremlin de Moscú.JPG
- File:Kreml-Ansicht.jpg
- File:Moscow Kremlin walls and gates-HE.png
- File:Plano del Kremlin de Mosca-Blanco.JPG
Polarlys (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Ewy25
[edit]- File:Escudo del G.D. GENIL.gif
- File:Manuel Fernández Ginés.jpg
- File:Formacion del G.D. GENIL- E.C. Manuel Galera para 1.977.jpg
- File:Antonio García garcia.jpg
- File:Angel Jesús Camarero Sánchez.jpg
- File:1985 Formacion Cadetes.jpg
- File:1982 Cadetes.jpg
- File:1970 Volta a Cataluña.jpg
All says "own work", but had no metadata. I told with the user en es:WP about the pictures and ask him to send OTRS permissions but had no answer. The logo of the team clearly is not candidate to {{PD-textlogo}}. --Andrea (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Answer Ewy25:
Every each of the picture above, belong to Enrique Moleon Espigares taked by self, which asked on a date January 24, 2012 at commons permissions for a license, for the correct use of these files in wikipedia, giving the rights of those files for use by users. Exceptly the file Manuel Fernández Ginés.jpg
To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Subject: Permiso de uso
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:19:45 +0100
Por la presente declaro que soy el único propietario de los derechos de autor exclusivos de OBRA de :
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Escudo_del_G.D._GENIL.gif
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Angel_Jes%C3%BAs_Camarero_S%C3%A1nchez.jpg
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Antonio_Garc%C3%ADa_garcia.jpg
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Formacion_del_G.D._GENIL-_E.C._Manuel_Galera_para_1.977.jpg
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:1970_Volta_a_Catalu%C3%B1a.jpg
Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre LICENCIA CC-BY-SA-3.0 Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas. Soy consciente de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas. Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.
Granada 24 de Enero ENRIQUE MOLEÓN ESPIGARES
Kinds regards.
--Ewy25 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Ewy25
- Delete I tend not to believe that uploader has some rights on the abovementioned pictures. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
there is no evidence the uploader has any rights to licence the image freely - possibly fiar-use on enwiki Ww2censor (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have got by e-mail the approval of the journal and can forward it to you.--Agnostosgnostos (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An e-mail was also sent yesterday directly to Commons by Mr Tsilonis (chairman of the Intellectum non-profit organisation, which is the copyright holder of Intellectum covers) regarding not only this cover but any future Intellectum covers as well.--Agnostosgnostos (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The uploader remove the deletion notice for a current unclosed deletion nomination and applied a Creative Commons non-commercial non-derivative licence which is not compatible with wikimedia - no evidence of permission has been given for a free licence Ww2censor (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To me it is not PD-text logo ! Kyro (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : The ultimate pictogram doesn't appear to be a font/typeface and so should not be considered under PD#Font. It appears as a mix of different elements : target (such as scope) included into a stylized character O Loreleil (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Domaina (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you are going to delete it, could it be transfered to the French Wikipedia (as it is legal to have copyrighted logos there) ? --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's simply colored text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OK compared to COM:TO#United States. --M5 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - US law applies (Microsoft logo). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Response to both previous comments : in order to apply PD:font we need to prove that it could be considered as a "common" font, or common forms (or a trivial variation of them : microsoft) : last element of the logo is not clearly the case. Loreleil (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get that "common font" requirement from? All typefaces are PD in the US, whether they are "common" or "uncommon". --M5 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a typeface here :) not as clearly as you say that the reason why I call it "common font" :) In fact typeface are not really copyrightable as it, but can you provide us with the typeface that has allowed to produced the last object in the logo ? For more information on what is considered as typeface : en:Intellectual property protection of typefaces and en:Typeface. Non-obvious typeface designs are protected by copyright:) Loreleil (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- en:Typeface#Intellectual_property: "...typeface designs are not subject to copyright. However, novel and non-obvious typeface designs are subject to protection by design patents...". Typeface designs (including non-obvious) are not protected by copyright, they may be protected by design patents and trademarks which are COM:Non-copyright restrictions. --M5 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- provide us with the typeface and we will discuss : right now you didnt :) Currently we only have a symbolic "target". Based on the same logic : en:File:Internet Explorer 9.png is not available on Commons as it, but using free image example : Category:Internet Explorer logos Loreleil (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to have a typeface; the US copyright office says that hand-drawn calligraphy is just as uncopyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you explain why the previous picture is not eligible for commons while it's just the same issue :p It's not just calligraphy... Based on a biased interpretation of the law you can dream of removing all copyrights but .... Loreleil (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- What previous picture? Instead of abusing my interpretation as biased, why don't you show some evidence? Come up with some statement from the US Copyright Office or case law? Given that you clearly misstated the law above, I'm not sure you're in any place to correct others on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- still no answer on basic question of internet explorer :) Loreleil (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you've added no question marks, I don't know how we should know that you asked a question. en:File:Internet Explorer 9.png is irrelevant; there are lots of files on Wikipedia that are marked as fair use because that's easiest, but could probably be brought here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- still no answer on basic question of internet explorer :) Loreleil (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- What previous picture? Instead of abusing my interpretation as biased, why don't you show some evidence? Come up with some statement from the US Copyright Office or case law? Given that you clearly misstated the law above, I'm not sure you're in any place to correct others on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you explain why the previous picture is not eligible for commons while it's just the same issue :p It's not just calligraphy... Based on a biased interpretation of the law you can dream of removing all copyrights but .... Loreleil (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a font available here, but I doubt it is distributed legally. --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's in fact an incorrect one : one of my point of control doesn't match ;) Loreleil (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to have a typeface; the US copyright office says that hand-drawn calligraphy is just as uncopyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- provide us with the typeface and we will discuss : right now you didnt :) Currently we only have a symbolic "target". Based on the same logic : en:File:Internet Explorer 9.png is not available on Commons as it, but using free image example : Category:Internet Explorer logos Loreleil (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- en:Typeface#Intellectual_property: "...typeface designs are not subject to copyright. However, novel and non-obvious typeface designs are subject to protection by design patents...". Typeface designs (including non-obvious) are not protected by copyright, they may be protected by design patents and trademarks which are COM:Non-copyright restrictions. --M5 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a typeface here :) not as clearly as you say that the reason why I call it "common font" :) In fact typeface are not really copyrightable as it, but can you provide us with the typeface that has allowed to produced the last object in the logo ? For more information on what is considered as typeface : en:Intellectual property protection of typefaces and en:Typeface. Non-obvious typeface designs are protected by copyright:) Loreleil (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get that "common font" requirement from? All typefaces are PD in the US, whether they are "common" or "uncommon". --M5 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Response to both previous comments : in order to apply PD:font we need to prove that it could be considered as a "common" font, or common forms (or a trivial variation of them : microsoft) : last element of the logo is not clearly the case. Loreleil (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: uncopyrightable typeface Royalbroil 13:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1950s not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old. sугсго 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of date and/or place of publication. No evidence of authorship. PD-Russia is no longer a valid licence. russavia (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
this website logo was only used in a deleted es.wikipedia article (Gasari/gasari.com), don't see any use in keeping it :bdk: 16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This picture has no more use for the article I wrote about Norbert Wagenbrett. Carmen.jaehnigen (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This picture has also no more use for the article I wrote about Norbert Wagenbrett. Carmen.jaehnigen (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This picture has also no more use for the article I wrote about Norbert Wagenbrett. Carmen.jaehnigen (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1950s. Not PD-Russia-2008, or PD-old. sугсго 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination, appears to be 1950s photo, therefore valid licence would be needed russavia (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1952, not PD-2008-Russia, not PD-old. sугсго 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1950. Not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old. sугсго 19:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination. Appears to be 1950s photo, therefore a valid licence is needed russavia (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1948. PD-Russia.2008, not PD-old. sугсго 19:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1950s. Not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old. sугсго 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of free license or copyleft granted by original author. The burden of proof is on the uploader. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Popular internet meme, no one have the rights of this image! JozeSlb (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This is de facto in the public domain even if the "original" posting can't be found. If it's determined to be a non-free file it should be hosted on Wikipedia instead. See en:Rage comic and related nominations Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forever Alone.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Me-gusta-original.png. – Pnm (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not making a fair-use argument for keeping it on Commons. It's an orphan work. It's impossible to locate the original contributor. Again, that person shared the work for the purpose of being used and re-used. That said, if Commons has no way to accommodate that, I think there's a fair-use argument for hosting it on Wikipedia as a non-free file with an unknown license. – Pnm (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use =/= free license. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use. Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license. Wikimedia Commons is free as in freedom, not free beer (i.e. libre, not gratis), and files here must have their licensing status confirmed; having an unknown license is grounds for deletion. One can only assume copyright on behalf of the original author until proven otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - popular internet meme, it seems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with "Something does not become "de facto" free if one cannot find details on its original license." Or does it has 100 years? --Andrea (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per Benlisquare--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio. russavia (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Non-free artwork : No FOP in France. Sémhur (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted work in a country without FoP Léna (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Invalid license. Either the image is in Public Domain or if not, then we need permission from the sculptor. Whether the sculpture meets FOP also needs to be seen. Sreejith K (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No Fop in Armenia BrightRaven (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely copyvio (it's a logo) — ~ Defeder (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
_2011_12_26.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2011_12_26.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
HI,It's my file & I don't want to share it everyone on the WWW. I thought it was a closed group that will have access to it with COPYRIGHT in place.... Thanks Deepak Brid (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
_2011_12_26.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
_2011_12_26.jpg){kind=link}
Incorrect license, source and author unclear. Leyo 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Photos by Robert Runyon
Moved from speedy. Obviously more complex than speedy requirements. Photos by Robert Runyon might still have a copyright. See en:Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Runyon. Yann (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Rangers1915.JPG
- File:FortBrown1915.jpg
- May be more from Category:Photographs by Robert Runyon.
Initial nomination was The image was taken in 1915, but published posthumously (post 1968). The center that maintains rights to this collection indicates it is copyrighted. See [3].
- Speedy Delete: It's more complex than speedy requirements? Why? The images are tagged {{PD-US}}. This is obviously false, as even the original uploader now agrees [4] that the images were published after 1923 (in fact, post 1968) and need to be deleted from Commons. The criteria for {{PD-US}} is the publish date, not the creation date. There's no wiggle room on that. The center that published these images, posthumously of the author, maintains copyright on them. If we were discussing an image created in 1972, as opposed to 1915, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The important point here is the difference between creation and publication and how this works under law. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Due to publication date and retention of copyright by the The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The image contains watermark that proves it is a derivative work from Google Maps. Google Maps images are not free. —Andrei S. Talk 09:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Well, clearly is not "own work" neither, unless author be owner of a satellite. --Andrea (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure this will qualify as a pure text-logo based on the creative use of colours. —SpacemanSpiff 10:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep OK compared to COM:TO#United States. --M5 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted according to enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: either PD-UN or PD-US-nonotice or both. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably pd-old but author claims creative commons license on a photograph Avron (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the Author of the photograph. Could you explain to me, what you meen with "probably pd-old" and why deletion is necessary due to pd-old? My grandfather took this photograph while beeing in Greece in 1941, therefor IMHO I'm the copyright holder of the photograph, and able to put it under a CC licence. McGoinz (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Addendum: My Grandfather died in 1986, thus he´s not dead yet longer than 70 years, thence, as far as I know, the copyright isn´t exspired and the heir(s), who I´m, hold(s) the copyright and accordingly can submit the work under chosen CC. McGoinz (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, you are not the author but as the heir the copyright-holder. Write that you are the heir and so the copyright-holder, write when your granfather died, correct the date when this photo has been correcte and we can close this.--Avron (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Pac-Man ghost is a copyrighted character. (Fair use in en) --Kungfuman (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Kungfuman (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Pac-Man ghost is a copyrighted character. (Fair use in en) --Kungfuman (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Changing speedy deletion to deletion request. Diego Moya (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Characters cannot be copyrighted. The image is not used in a commercial context and thus neither a trademark infringement. Diego Moya (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- First that's not a qualified legal page. The Pac-Man character itself is not the problem (simple shaped), but the ghost. That's derivative of a copyrighted character. And all common files need to be usuable for commercial purposes. We don't have CC-BY-NC. --Kungfuman (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there evidence that the character is copyrighted and not just trademarked? (Also read Trademark#Non-copyright_restrictions "However, non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia"). Diego Moya (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- First that's not a qualified legal page. The Pac-Man character itself is not the problem (simple shaped), but the ghost. That's derivative of a copyrighted character. And all common files need to be usuable for commercial purposes. We don't have CC-BY-NC. --Kungfuman (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The game (and all content) is copyrighted. This is a derivative work very similar like the Fair use screenshot [5] . See also COM:Fan_art#Re-drawing_does_not_avoid_copyright_infringement And Pac-Man is a franchise selling toys and such things of those characters. Copyrighted and trademarked like all other video game characters, screenshots or parts of them (except a very simple shaped Pac Man pie, Pokeball and similar). You can't compare this to the apple image. --Kungfuman (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have asked for evidence that the character is copyrighted. Do you have it? I'm not comparing anything to apples. Commons:Fan_art#Re-drawing_does_not_avoid_copyright_infringement doesn't say anything about video-game characters, and trademark is not relevant at all as it wouldn't forbid this image from being at Commons. Diego Moya (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pacman-cutscene.png){kind=link}
- As I told before, this commercial videogame and all content is copyrighted c) and R) by namco (read the manual of any game and please check the namco website and their shop/pacman brand). YOU need a proof that this character is free and may be commercially used by anyone else as mandatory on commons. You linked the commons trademark page which includes the apple trademark and the photo of a real apple. This has nothing to do with trademarks. Even if the character wouldn't be copyrighted, this image is a derivative work of a screenshot of that game which is also copyrighted. And it's a franchise like all other action figures and toys, too. Please read COM:DW. I won't to discuss this any further, an admin will decide this. This is obviously not free content. Why do you need this image? There are enough Pacman images and possibility of Fair use. Your argument "I created this image myself from memory" means you have seen the game and created either a derivative work or a (too close) fan art. You obviously don't know anything about free contents and proper licenses. You also removed and reverted my copyvio tag and even didn't made an entry at the deletion page properly, so nobody find this. --Kungfuman (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, I think this may be {{PD-ineligible}}. (Maybe the ghost could be made a bit simpler, e.g. just a nub shape with two dots and a line for a mouth.) Best Western's logo is about as complex as this and has been rejected for copyright protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted under this name Pac-Man cutscene.svg And the other ghosts had also been deleted PacMan Ghosts.png --Kungfuman (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The 'ineligible' argument brought by King of Hearts wasn't raised at those discussions. I think it has merit. Diego Moya (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Pac-Man is obviously free under both COM:TOO#Japan (source country) and COM:TOO#United States (Commons requirement). No opinion on whether the blue character is copyrightable or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The vector ghost in this file isn't an accurate rendition of the pixel version: compare the distance between the eyes and the curvature of the top. -- Trevj (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't mind. If it's not accurate it's derivative. And again I'm not talking about Pac-Man but the ghost only. --Kungfuman (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Does the pixel version meet the threshold of originality? In any case, it seems to me that {{PD-ineligible}} applies, as suggested by King of Hearts. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently does not meet the threshold of originality FASTILY (TALK) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, just like source file (File:Google userbox_id.jpg). Not used anywhere (other than an editors user subpage listing it as his upload). –Krinkletalk 00:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
SVG version of this file is in use, therefore Keep per COM:SUP. --M5 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot contains personal information such as email addresses. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody cares. This screenshot will at some point have historic character because it's the most common screenshot of Plan 9... --109.84.131.83 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody cares + 1!
- Nobody cares + 1. Plus, this is an awesome screenshot.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Could be {{PD-ineligible}} and/or {{PD-shape}}. If so, then keep. --High Contrast (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
better gallery at Textile, we only need one gallery for this synonymous term Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have added more images to Textile, and it may have enough in the Fabric section for it to have its own gallery. I am new at gallery creation, dont know the criteria fully yet, but it may now not need deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would recommend to make it a redirect to the main article. --JuTa 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Gallery has been deleted, with any pertinent content moved to Textile. May i ask someone to close this DR?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)