Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_001.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Copia_de_yoppp.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![109 File:Vue_intérieure_de_la_galerie_Kamel_Mennour_-_Exposition_Huang_Yong_Ping_"Caverne_2009"_20091023-20091219.jpg](#File:Vue_intérieure_de_la_galerie_Kamel_Mennour_-_Exposition_Huang_Yong_Ping_"Caverne_2009"_20091023-20091219.jpg){kind=link}
copyvio from source, bleather report uses images from the Associated Press Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from source, bleather report uses images from the Associated Press Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: self-nomination by uploader on day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: self-nomination by uploader on day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: self-nomination by uploader on day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
delete Wiki01 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: self-nomination by uploader on day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio Wvk (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Wvk (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nueva foto FútbolWEB (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Denniss (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused picture of non notable person Flickrworker (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unknown person Flickrworker (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't think we need that low quality (also due to extremely low resolution) photo. Similar ones are File:Erection_partial.jpg or File:Corona_of_glans_penis_uncircumcised.jpg or in Category:Uncircumcised human penis Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: bad quality, hardly usable, far better replacement images available Denniss (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Falsified Flickr bot claim, given source URL is from Tumblr; indicates photo from commercial mag, therefore PD is unlikely Dl2000 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation - While the source image is PD, the reproduction is not. Source site clearly states: "The images on this web site are copyrighted and have visible and hidden digital watermarks. The antique prints do not have these watermarks. If interested in using the images please contact us." Whaledad (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep : copy of a 2D PD file doesn't add right, source is PD. ----MGuf (d) 15:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, after reading up on this, it would seem that this assertion is correct, but in that case, the correct tag is {{PD-scan}}. And of course the Watermark issue needs to be resolved. Whaledad (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-scan}}
Done, {{watermark}} Done. ----MGuf (d) 17:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request removed Done, Note that part of the watermark is still visible in the lower part of the mill. Whaledad (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- All of watermark is now removed Done. Great effort by MGuf! Thanks! Whaledad (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request removed
- {{PD-scan}}
- OK, after reading up on this, it would seem that this assertion is correct, but in that case, the correct tag is {{PD-scan}}. And of course the Watermark issue needs to be resolved. Whaledad (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as image falls clearly under PD-Scan/Art and as nominator has retracted his DR. Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Unsharp image of a glans - better ones can be found on Commons. This one cannot be used for any encyclopedic goals 80.187.96.57 21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. Image is realy unsharp.
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Previously deleted for lacking source information. uploader claims that it is a painting made from this photo and both are their own work, however it doesn't look like a painting to me, but a photo turned to a painting in an image editing application. ■ MMXX talk 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
if I may be the first to respond to your comments as for it being a photo turned image using an application, if you put the photo and painting side by side, you would see there are some facial expression differences, not to mention the details added to the painting like the cup of coffee on the left, it's clearly not the exact same photo, but rather an inspired painting of that same photo, if your claim was true it would've been exactly the same colors as the photo, without the coffee cup, the dark tie and light background, the facial expressions in the painting are smoother and less intense than those in the photo, the hair is also lighter in the painting than it is in the photo, all are visible proofs of it being a hand painted production.
I hope this sheds a light on things.
Thanks.
--Samerfaraj01 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have also uploaded another file of the Framed Painting File:HaiderMahmoud2012-2.JPG where you can clearly see the grainy texture of the canvas caused by the layers of Acrylic paint used to create it, which gives paintings a rough texture due to the layering of the base drawing using charcoal pens and chalk to draw with detail, then layers of acrylic and a final layer of glossy varnish to preserve the colors. with all due respect I don't see what the point in all of this, having supplied all the information you've requested and proven that both the photo and the portrait aren't anybody else's property, which is the core of the issue at hand, the means with which the photo was used to create the portrait doesn't affect the fact of them both being mine, and I'm the copyright holder of both, which I think was your concern when you deleted it, bearing in mind that the person in the photos/portrait, is my father, it is of common sense that I be the first to be aware of copyrights related to him.
Thank you.
--Samerfaraj01 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
_001.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_001.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Video game screenshot, out of COM:PS, related enwp article deleted Funfood ␌ 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
_001.png){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
_001.png){kind=link}
higher resolution version previously deleted as File:Meerut college.jpg. Copyright violation from the college's website. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio of the image on http://www.meerutcollege.org/. Logan Talk Contributions 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Indices do not display properly. Replaced by File:BeckmannRearrangement3.svg. Leyo 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
SVG bug, better versions in Category:Electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions, not used anywhere. Leyo 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not sure if image can be "fixed", but because better versions are available, the best solution is probably to delete. --AlphaEta (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Category:9-BBN. Leyo 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and there are higher quality equivalents. Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality (low resolution, badGIF), replaced in en:Calixarene by better version. Leyo 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a higher quality equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality (low resolution, badGIF), weird angles, replaced by File:CuTC Ullmann Coupling.png. Leyo 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a higher quality equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:Cysteinehomocysteine.svg. Leyo 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a higher quality equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation - Mdd is the designer of the bookcase, but Viva Magazine is the owner of the copyright of the picture of it. No OTRS ticket visible that permission was obtained from Viva. Whaledad (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:Whaledad has misunderstood the template info. This is a picture made on my account in Spring 1992 and first published in Viva magazine The Netherlands, 18 sept 1992 (see also here). This is just a representation of my own work, and I am the copyright-owner of the image. -- Mdd (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture wasn't made by you, but "on your account", you still need a release from the photographer. Whaledad (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, but our rules don't work that way. The uploader's assertion of copyright is not sufficient, particularly where he has a history of copyvio and also where he claims "own work" when it clearly is not. We will need a formal license from Viva via OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the arguments, why I claim copyright:
- When the picture was made in 1992 a verbal agreement was made that I could use the image without any restriction. I lost all sight of the photographer, and have no written prove
- The image has been published a dozen times over the last 20 years: between 1992 and 1998 at least six times (see here); here on Wikipedia and on Flickr for three years; and on a dozen other places on the web... without the photographer being mentioned or the picture claimed by the photographer.
- The image itself is (in a way) derived work, because I came to the photographer with a set of images that where not that perfect, but did contain the same concept of the image and the shadow.
- The photographer had put all his skills into the picture and made it a perfect picture. The picture is an excellent example of craftsmanship. However the copyright is on the unique signature on the picture, which was already in the examples I took with me to the photo session. I guess the situation here is similar to google streetview, which can not be copyrighted because of it's lack of creative input, it is pure craftsmanship.
- Now I will try to track the photographer, and make a new deal. Also I am willing to take my changes in court if the photographer starts claiming the picture after 20 years., and/or take immediate action here when a copyright claim would arrive.
- And if not I can upload a new photo by the end of the week. -- Mdd (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note, please, that you keep talking about the photographer. Viva's copyright is also an issue. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- What Viva issue? The Viva is a Dutch magazine for women, where the picture was published for the first time Sept 18, 1992 (see here). The claim by Whaledad "Viva Magazine is the owner of the copyright" is sheer nonsense. The fact that a magazine publishes a picture, doesn't mean it is the copyright owner. -- Mdd (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does not mean that Viva is the owner, but it does mean that Viva has a license to publish the image. Since many such licenses are exclusive, we routinely require permission from any place an image has been published. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just handed over the picture to a related designer, who handed over the picture to the Viva who just pubished it. Where is that rule written down? -- Mdd (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Viva is (and was) a respectable magazine in the Netherlands. They will not willy-nilly place a picture. They will ascertain copyrights. Whaledad (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just handed over the picture to a related designer, who handed over the picture to the Viva who just pubished it. Where is that rule written down? -- Mdd (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does not mean that Viva is the owner, but it does mean that Viva has a license to publish the image. Since many such licenses are exclusive, we routinely require permission from any place an image has been published. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Mdd commissioned a professional photographer to make a publicity photo of his designs, and this photo was used for publicity in several publications. He says there was an agreement that there were no restrictions on his use of the photo, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that. It is the agreement that he needed. Viva published the photo, like they publish a lot of publicity material; there is no reason to suspect that they were granted any exclusive rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such "agreements" should be sent to OTRS, if written - full scan with relevant signatures, if oral - written confirmation by both sides. Until then Delete. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Commons has no problem accepting uploads by anonymous contributors, but when a known artist contributes under his own name, unknown people start making extreme demands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such "agreements" should be sent to OTRS, if written - full scan with relevant signatures, if oral - written confirmation by both sides. Until then
- The more I dive into this, the more things are confusing. This catalog page clearly states "Foto Intermezzzo" indicating the picture (copyright) is property of Intermezzo. It's a somewhat cropped version of the picture but the exact position of the shadow makes it clear this is indeed the same picture. Whaledad (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is not a catalog page, it is a newspaper clipping. So Rotterdams Dagblad got this photo from Intermezzo (a gallery in Dordrecht), which got both the book case and the photo from Mdd. The photo had been made several years before the exhibition at Intermezzo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's get the discussion back to the basic facts that we know and can check:
- Mdd designed the "Kast"; he owns the copyright on that
- A professional photographer made the photograph
- We suppose (!) that Mdd commissioned the making of the photograph (on Mdd's claim)
- We don't know what the exact arrangements between Mdd and the photographer are/were with respect to usage and copyrights (we only have Mdd's word that he has unlimited usage rights, but somewhere above he talks about making a new deal with this photographer)
I think there is enough that we don't know for a fact that it is very reasonable that we ask for OTRS ticket. Whaledad (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, back to the basics. Do you have any prove, that is not like I tell here. -- Mdd (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem simply is, that I lost sight of the photographers. Or at least 2 of the 3 photographers of the 4 pictures now questioned. I just spook to the photographer of this picture, who promised to be cooperative and work with me on that. But here is the same problem gildemax en Immanuel Giel talked about May 19, 2006, see here and the series of 403 images. Is it going to work? Do professional photographers want to give up their rights in writing?
- This is no longer about improving Wikicommons. The requirements are raised to an irrational high level. If this was about improving Wikicommons, we should start with those 403 images, and go on with maybe thousands of professional pictures of art objects, which are commonly not made by the artist. Or what about the thousands of professional pictures by professional photographers of other people uploaded by users.
- I have put my copyright-claim in writing here, and handed my head on a silver plate if the photographer wants to claim copyright after all. In that situation there is clearly a conflict between me and the photographer, and Wikicommons can deny all responsibility. What more could Wikicommons want here? -- Mdd (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- You just mentioned the core question: "Do professional photographers want to give up their rights in writing?" For each picture, that is indeed the question. If they don't the picture needs to be deleted. It is not acceptable for the uploader to say: I will deal with the legal conflict if it ever comes up. That's not the way that Wiki works. And these are no new demands. These have been in place for a long time (if not forever). Whaledad (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The core question here is, whether we are going to be realistic are not. Reality is that legal conflicts occur, and will occur even more in the future. There are probably ten thousands, maybe even hundred thousands, of images with the same problem I have here, that the photographer is out of reach. The solution can never be to eliminate them all, for the simple reason that lots of them remain unnoticed. I would argued that it is much better to be prepared. -- Mdd (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, Mdd, I think you can accomplish exactly what you want (that you are recognized as the copyright owner, and than you get the legal responsibly (and liability) if ever that is challenged) in the following way: You submit (using the standard procedures) an OTRS declaration in which you claim to have any and all copyright on all the pictures in question. That way the pictures will receive a proper OTRS ticket and everybody is happy (and safe). Whaledad (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The core question here is, whether we are going to be realistic are not. Reality is that legal conflicts occur, and will occur even more in the future. There are probably ten thousands, maybe even hundred thousands, of images with the same problem I have here, that the photographer is out of reach. The solution can never be to eliminate them all, for the simple reason that lots of them remain unnoticed. I would argued that it is much better to be prepared. -- Mdd (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- You just mentioned the core question: "Do professional photographers want to give up their rights in writing?" For each picture, that is indeed the question. If they don't the picture needs to be deleted. It is not acceptable for the uploader to say: I will deal with the legal conflict if it ever comes up. That's not the way that Wiki works. And these are no new demands. These have been in place for a long time (if not forever). Whaledad (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- On Feb 3 Mdd wrote on this page: "I have contacted the photographer to make new/better arrangements beginning next week. I guess (by the end of) next week I will send confirmation to the OTRS system.". On Feb 4 this was deleted by Mdd with the edit summary "Sorry Pieter but this is not going to happen now, maybe later this year." It would seem that the photographer decided not to cooperate at this time. Whaledad (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- A new picture is uploaded. The three older versions of this image can be deleted, and this deletion requests can be closed. -- Mdd (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great news. Thanks. Whaledad (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Accordingly the deletion request should now be read as: Please remove the versions uploaded 26 March 2009, 21 March 2010, 22 March 2010. Whaledad (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Earlier versions deleted. Closed early because nom agrees that the issues in the original DR have been addressed. Three earlier versions deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Earlier versions restored as per [2]. Yann (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=689153619#File:KAST_kast_designed_by_Marcel_Douwe_Dekker_in_1992.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation - Mdd is the designer of the ash tray, but Folkert Helmus and/or Item Magazine are the owner of the copyright of the picture of it. No OTRS ticket visible that permission was obtained from Folkert Helmus and/or Item Magazine. Whaledad (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:Whaledad has misunderstood the template info. This is a picture made on my account in Spring 1994 and first published among other places in Item Magazine, summer 1994 (see also here). This is just a representation of my own work, and I am the copyright-owner of the image. -- Mdd (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture wasn't made by you, but "on your account", you still need a release from the photographer. Whaledad (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but per Mdd's statement at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spider light 1994.jpg he is now going to do this. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which is wonderful. Contrary to Mdd's believes, I'm not out "to get him". I just want to make sure that we have the right attributions and the right permissions for all items on WM. Whaledad (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but per Mdd's statement at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spider light 1994.jpg he is now going to do this. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have made and uploaded a new picture today. The old version can be deleted. -- Mdd (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request change to: remove the version uploaded 26 March 2009 - Whaledad (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: deleted old version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation - Mdd is the designer of the ash tray, but Folkert Kelmus and/or Decors Magazine are the owner of the copyright of the picture of it. No OTRS ticket visible that permission was obtained from Folkert Helmus and/or Decors Magazine. Whaledad (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:Whaledad has misunderstood the template info. This is a picture made on my account in Summer 1994 and published among other places in Decors Magazine (see also here). This is just a representation of my own work, and I am the copyright-owner of the image. -- Mdd (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture wasn't made by you, but "on your account", you still need a release from the photographer. Whaledad (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is only a courtesy from my side that I have mentioned the photographer. There has been a verbal agreements between not even the photographer, but the agency U&R, who ordered the photo session. This should do it here. At any time the both of them can question that agreement. But there is no prove that this is the case. There is no argument, that the copyright should be questioned.
- A "verbal agreement" is not good enough for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will need written proof, and it is not just if and when the copyright holder complains that that proof is needed. That proof is always needed. Whaledad (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is only a courtesy from my side that I have mentioned the photographer. There has been a verbal agreements between not even the photographer, but the agency U&R, who ordered the photo session. This should do it here. At any time the both of them can question that agreement. But there is no prove that this is the case. There is no argument, that the copyright should be questioned.
- If the picture wasn't made by you, but "on your account", you still need a release from the photographer. Whaledad (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is however a matter of Wikihounding by Whaledad:
- It started here this weekend on the Dutch Wikipedia
- This also involves the question I have asked here on Wikicommons. A real problem concerning 304 images which have questionable licenses. However this does not concern Whaledad, because he just want to put more pressure on me
- Which proceeded on Wikiquote here
- And has been moved here by Whaledad, involving editwarring here
- And eventually altering my name here (which I find very offending)
- And eventually futher harassment by starting a Commons:Deletion requests, without asking for the background first
- At the moment there is a battle going on at the Dutch Wikipedia between me and a group of hardcore Dutch Wikpedians, which started Wikihounding outside the Dutch Wikipedia this weekend. In different places they are playing the system and are poising the cooperation. I have added a similar complain (here) on the Dutch Wikiquote.
- There is a similar pattern over and over again. The start an accusation based on some arguments, and when you prove them wrong they try to come up with new arguments. This should stop here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I take serious offense by this accusation of 'wikihounding' (sic) and the insinuation of ulterior motives. My first contact was about an image that you had only cropped and then uploaded as if it was a creation from you. I alerted you to this, and helped you correct the entry in Commons. Ultimately I found more items that you uploaded and had marked yourself as the "author" while this was either clearly not true, or highly questionable. As you are an artist yourself, I'm surprised by your lack of accuracy when dealing with other people's intellectual property. Whaledad (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- For futher discussion, see here . -- Mdd (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The claim of "own work" is incorrect. The image is clearly the work of Folkert Helmus and Commons policy is very clear that we will require OTRS permission from him or her in order to keep the image. The accusation of Wikihounding is ridiculous -- it is perfectly standard practice to check all of a user's uploads when several of them have been found to be copyvios and when the user apparently does not understand how copyright works. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion has given me some new insides, which I will look into. I will set some things in motion. -- Mdd (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have just uploaded a new picture of the Spider light. The older image can be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- New picture is actually an improvement over the earlier one! Whaledad (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request should now be read as: Please remove the versions uploaded in 2009. Whaledad (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Earlier version deleted. Closed early because nom agrees that the issues in the original DR have been addressed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Small personal unused photo, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
`delete` shitty image - no encyclopedic value. --80.187.96.57 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:Use of Hunig's base for alkylating secondary amines.png. Leyo 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a higher quality equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 21:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, no foreseeable use. Leyo 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I have asked the original uploader for any context here. -84user (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Replaced by wikitable in en:Hammett equation. Leyo 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (low resolution, badGIF); replaced in en:Tacticity#Syndiotactic polymers by better version. Leyo 02:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a higher quality equivalent. Ed (Edgar181) 21:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Not free. See http://www.avclub.com/articles/kristen-schaal,14173/ from 2007 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Otrs nº 1580561 as linked on image page. Tm (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per ticket:2008052710023857 - the image was released by the copyright holder/her management on her request - Alison ❤ 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Valid OTRS permission Captain-tucker (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
OOS? as yet, unused Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. ----MGuf (d) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
promotional Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
promotional Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
promotional, as are all the other uploads by user Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, contain copyrited pictures. ----MGuf (d) 16:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a group of friends, not in scope. grillo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope ----MGuf (d) 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable band, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable band, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
looks like a personal snap Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
looks like a personal snap Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
personal photo Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
personal b'day pic Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
not notable band, out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope/maybe partially copyvio Honza chodec (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - not notable person Honza chodec (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, not usable Honza chodec (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - personal photo Honza chodec (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - not notable person Honza chodec (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photo Honza chodec (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
promotional - logo of not notable company Honza chodec (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - logo of not notable company Honza chodec (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - album cover of not notable band Honza chodec (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, article deleted from en wiki Honza chodec (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - article was deleted from en wiki Honza chodec (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, wrong licence Honza chodec (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
images used for some problem ilustration, probably not needed anymore Honza chodec (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
images used for some problem ilustration, probably not needed anymore Honza chodec (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Trijnstel (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Spam. Hence the big logo in the middle of it! Flickrworker (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Flickrworker (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
non notable band Flickrworker (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrectly licensed and unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknown singer Flickrworker (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
unknown personal image Flickrworker (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
_de_Copia_de_yoppp.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_de_Copia_de_yoppp.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused picture Flickrworker (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
_de_Copia_de_yoppp.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
_de_Copia_de_yoppp.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation, because no permission was sought and no license is used. 88.224.7.220 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I added the license and all other information. mickit 14:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Used for self-promotion. Not sure if this is a reason for a deletion. See also the username and the deleted page Yan skladman composer. Trijnstel (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Authors request, unused image, bad view, new better and different images available, i want this one deleted. WhiteWriter speaks 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per author request, not used anywhere mickit 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PDF with a list of companies, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:Fries rearrangement (photo).svg. Leyo 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Keep same reason as for Commons:Deletion requests/File:FullereneC60.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hantzsch example.gif. I believe Commons consensus is that we keep images that are useful, and especially images that are the source for derivative images, as I feel this one is. I am concerned that such deletions will reflect badly on how Commons is perceived by other Wikimedia projects. See also Commons:Superseded images policy which has "The deletion of superseded images has been discontinued!". -84user (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am concerned that you obviously never read Commons:Superseded images policy until the bottom. --Leyo 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that's true, I missed the "See also Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality". I do not mean to say we should not nominate images, only that some deletions may cause bad PR. In this case the reason given is "low quality", and yes a raster image *can* be lower quality than an SVG, in that the pixels are visible and it cannot be smoothly rescaled. I also forgot to explain better: in this case I looked at the PNG and the SVG, and they are different - the PNG shows a curved arrow from the electron on the C2O group to the electron inside the bracketed group, it omits the R group and uses circles instead of. In short my argument is that both images are useful, one user may want the version with the arrow, R group and circles (for whatever reason, maybe historical?) another want the SVG with its different . -84user (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The usage of circles in such a reaction mechanism should be avoided. If you prefer to have a version without R but an acetate group, there is File:Photo-Fries Reaction V.1.svg that also accounts for the ortho substituted reaction product. --Leyo 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The decision as to which version a user wishes to use should not be up to Commons, but up to the user themselves. We should not restrict their choice. Maybe the user wishes to show historical, albeit possibly inaccurate, diagrams? By all means annotate the image with helpful notes as to its accuracy, but let the editors of various Wikipedia projects decide for themselves. Have we lost sight of what Commons is for? -84user (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- If all users were inclusionists, we would mostly have categories clogged with redundant low quality images and it would be difficult to find the high quality versions. --Leyo 09:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC) PS. Did you notice that the image was copied from en.wikipedia very recently?
- The decision as to which version a user wishes to use should not be up to Commons, but up to the user themselves. We should not restrict their choice. Maybe the user wishes to show historical, albeit possibly inaccurate, diagrams? By all means annotate the image with helpful notes as to its accuracy, but let the editors of various Wikipedia projects decide for themselves. Have we lost sight of what Commons is for? -84user (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The usage of circles in such a reaction mechanism should be avoided. If you prefer to have a version without R but an acetate group, there is File:Photo-Fries Reaction V.1.svg that also accounts for the ortho substituted reaction product. --Leyo 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that's true, I missed the "See also Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality". I do not mean to say we should not nominate images, only that some deletions may cause bad PR. In this case the reason given is "low quality", and yes a raster image *can* be lower quality than an SVG, in that the pixels are visible and it cannot be smoothly rescaled. I also forgot to explain better: in this case I looked at the PNG and the SVG, and they are different - the PNG shows a curved arrow from the electron on the C2O group to the electron inside the bracketed group, it omits the R group and uses circles instead of. In short my argument is that both images are useful, one user may want the version with the arrow, R group and circles (for whatever reason, maybe historical?) another want the SVG with its different . -84user (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Leyo, and in addition, Fries02.png seems to be a copy scan. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- What does copy scan mean? Does it imply a copyright violation (in which case I would agree with deletion). -84user (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Given the strange background (typically from scans) and comparing images from 2005 ("original upload date"), this image is very suspicious. Hence I follow this principle and because we do have alternatives I proposed deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- What does copy scan mean? Does it imply a copyright violation (in which case I would agree with deletion). -84user (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:SUP, what else is there to say. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- What about giving a more specific reason? You obviously missed the statement at the bottom of the linked policy page. --Leyo 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and there is a superior equivalent. Chemistry concerns related to the representation of aromaticity are valid. Concerns related to COM:SUP don't seem to apply because that policy specifically permits "a normal deletion request for superseded images" such as this. Ed (Edgar181) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a personal work. Found on various web sites, original image probably from BNF (see for instance http://www.msipublishing.com/blog/category/kindle-publishing/) Croquant (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear, the uploader is not the author. ----MGuf (d) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload Michaellambert (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a personal work. Found on various web sites, original image probably from BNF (see for instance http://www.msipublishing.com/blog/category/kindle-publishing/) Croquant (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear, the uploader is not the author. ----MGuf (d) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload Michaellambert (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused template which realistically cannot be used in Commons. Makes more sense in Wikipedia though. Sreejith K (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
book cover, unclear whether uploader has rights Chesdovi (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Random tourist photography without any encyclopedic value. The uploader should focus her upload work on usable files 80.187.96.57 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclodedia. Gratuitous comments about the uploader are not needed either. The picture is obviously part of a sequence of shots depicting the area and its buildings. I see no reason to delete it at this stage. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per Tony Wills. Trycatch (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I'm uploading my photos in batches, and though I do some triage before the upload I concede that some of them may be redundant or suffer from bad quality - I'm still sort of learning the basics in photography - or some other reason that may imply their deletion now or in the future. In this case, however, it is not a "random" nor a "tourist" photograph. A major part of my photos are taken with the specific purpose of documenting the area where I live and to donate them - along with the effort of identification, categorization, etc - to Commons, and so is the case of this one. It shows the entrance of one of the oldest Shopping Centers in town, "D. João", along with some shops and the cafe in the entrance. Perhaps it's not the greatest perspective of the subject, but it was focused on the shop selling marijuana products ("The Art of Joint") at the right-middle of the picture, which sort of provides a graphical document of the drug laws in Portugal. When I come back to that spot I'll try to get a better shot (I've a better camera now), though even then this one may still be useful - Personally, I don't find it such a disgrace, and as it is now it's the only close up photo of the building, as far as I know. -- Darwin Ahoy! 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright-protected software, has nothing to do on Commons. Vascer (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- if it is so, then delete it quickly Jmex (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:FRET-Phosgene.svg. Leyo 01:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Glico man in the middle, as far as determined, is still in copyright and needs to be removed from this photo. There is also no FOP in Japan that complies with our licenseing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well... I wonder why my file was deleted and File:Japan Osaka.png was not deleted?--Kyoww (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, many better alternatives available in Category:Fullerenes. Leyo 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a usable and therefore useful image. -84user (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- You missed to state a reason why this low quality (pixelated, low resolution) image is superior to images in the mentioned category. --Leyo 10:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Leyo, the category contains dozens of far better alternatives that are more educational. No fuss about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Besides being pixelated and low resolution, I think this image is not useful because of the distortion of the bond lengths and bond angles that imply an incorrect geometry. Ed (Edgar181) 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Same as Ed, the distortion is disturbing and we have better images. Perditax (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Incorrect geometry, as noted by Ed. --AlphaEta (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:Hantzsch pyridine synthesis.svg. Leyo 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, generally we keep the original image, and being low quality is not sufficient reason to delete. -84user (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- You missed that the newer (better) version is from the same author. Hence, your statement is not valid in this case. --Leyo 02:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess what you are saying is that the reason "Deleting source images might break the “attribution path” for the new SVG image, which breaks licenses such as the GFDL." does not apply because there is no attribution path to break? However is Commons consensus such that a file uploaded by one person can become deleted when the same person uploads a different, possibly "better" version? I hope not, I have uploaded a variety of images, some markedly better than others, but I wish to give users the as many different images to choose from. The same applies here: let the user, who we are supposedly meant to be serving, decide which version to use. I looked at past discussion on deleting superceded images and noted your views at Commons talk:Superseded images policy#“There is an exception to every rule”, and I note that not everyone shares those views. I feel it's both unnecessary work to delete and possibly harmful (even if the chance of harm is remote, as may be in this case). -84user (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the case of images that are ineligible for copyright, there even is no attribution path to break. BTW: The uploader replaced the image under discussion him-/herself in the article. Since the new is virtually identical, but without weird angles and of clearly better graphical quality, there is simply no benefit in keeping the bad version. There are other alternatives such as File:Hantzsche Pyridinsynthese.svg or File:Hantzsch Pyridinesynthesis.png. --Leyo 09:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess what you are saying is that the reason "Deleting source images might break the “attribution path” for the new SVG image, which breaks licenses such as the GFDL." does not apply because there is no attribution path to break? However is Commons consensus such that a file uploaded by one person can become deleted when the same person uploads a different, possibly "better" version? I hope not, I have uploaded a variety of images, some markedly better than others, but I wish to give users the as many different images to choose from. The same applies here: let the user, who we are supposedly meant to be serving, decide which version to use. I looked at past discussion on deleting superceded images and noted your views at Commons talk:Superseded images policy#“There is an exception to every rule”, and I note that not everyone shares those views. I feel it's both unnecessary work to delete and possibly harmful (even if the chance of harm is remote, as may be in this case). -84user (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Leyo, a clear example of duplicate: we have on bad gif, which is replaced by a good svg. Hence the old gif is not of any use anymore. In addition, we even have a black/white svg. And finally author's wish, so keep cool. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's not too low quality to be uneducational. Also COM:SUP VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not cite policies you haven't fully understood. --Leyo 13:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
logo, too unique to be pd-text, only use was for an article that was deleted for notability concerns in the english wiki two years ago Jaranda wat's sup 05:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Vue_intérieure_de_la_Chapelle_des_Petits_Augustins_-_Exposition_Anish_Kapoor_20110512-20110611.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation ADAGP & Anish Kapoor Ghiardini (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Picture of of a copyrited art. ----MGuf (d) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete copyright ---Clubalerte (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork by Anish Kapoor PierreSelim (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
first upload on wp:fr, without source, no exif, "pro" picture not from uploader, like all pictures uploaded by this user now deleted, see fr:Wikipédia:Images à supprimer/Fichier:Shinkansen S500 1069309751024.jpg and fr:Discussion utilisateur:BakaOnigiri --MGuf (d) 11:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per MGuf PierreSelim (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Rights on photograph not clear, doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 01:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - unclear who this is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, rights not clear. Funfood ␌ 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - unclear who this is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This architects (Edouard Chimot) died only in 1959. No FOP in Italy User:G.dallorto (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Eduard Chimot must give permission to photograph the building no Tiburzi, but he died in 1959 so we must wait 70 years Ezarateesteban 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation? Edgars2007 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unknowed author ----MGuf (d) 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 13:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Product insert for competent cells from Invitrogen. Most certainly copyrighted. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Article from the journal Virus Research published in 2006. Clear copyright problem. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nmo Ezarateesteban 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Vue_intérieure_de_la_galerie_Kamel_Mennour_-_Exposition_Huang_Yong_Ping_"Caverne_2009"_20091023-20091219.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation © Huang Yong Ping / ADAPG Ghiardini (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 13:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploaders request. Unused image of poor quality, better equivalent available on commons of the same bridge. WhiteWriter speaks 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per author request, not used anywhere mickit 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploaders request, bad view, trees in front, street lighting and garbage can in the way. Better image available. WhiteWriter speaks 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per author request, not used anywhere mickit 18:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - mag cover Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong license ({{PD-BrazilGov}} does not apply here). Razvan Socol (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Ooops - I saw the "Photo of Jason Gleed taken by Alana Dafonseca" just as I hit the key to finish upload... I think delete for now, I will restore the en-Wiki image and put it up for no permission. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Flickr uploader isnt the copyright holder. Flickr upload date is November 6 2009, see for example http://www.lastfm.de/music/Inna/+images/36423685 of October 2009. Flickr account shows no evidence that this is a pro photgrapher, only the ordinary flickrvio uploads of a fan account or someone using flickr as a filehost for not self-created content. Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted, obvious license laundering. The uploader has made other similar uploads, though. :( →Spiritia 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No freedom of panorama in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have my doubts whether this image is more than 100 years old. If this was not the case, I have my doubts whether this image with its childlike drawing style is within the schope of the project. ALE! ¿…? 09:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is a doodle. No value. Nuke it.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I tagged those two imaged as copyright violations (derivative works), but someone removed the tags. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Assume good faith : uloader seem to be the author... Copied from where? ----MGuf (d) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming bad faith, the description itself says: Detail zápisu od neznámeho autora z verejne prístupnej obecnej knihy. It is a derivative work, there's no bad faith in saying that. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you're right. Delete ----MGuf (d) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you're right.
- I'm not assuming bad faith, the description itself says: Detail zápisu od neznámeho autora z verejne prístupnej obecnej knihy. It is a derivative work, there's no bad faith in saying that. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted artwork which does not meet de-minimis Sreejith K (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
no source, profesionnal picture, same picture in highest resolution available --MGuf (d) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Its at least a downscaled duplicate of fr:Fichier:Shinkansen S500 1069309751024.jpg, this means it is not the uploader MG's own work. Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the other files I uploaded that you've nominated for deletion, the PDF in question describes the assignment a professor gave his 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. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If Davis's comment is correct, then the text should certainly be in an article on WP. There is no reason for a pdf here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope and copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, tables can be added to Wikipedia articles if in scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the other files I uploaded that you've nominated for deletion, the PDF in question describes the assignment a professor gave his 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. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
hnjmkoihhii 2.193.155.37 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you want to have this file deleted? Can you explain what you mean by out of scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.127.5 (talk • contribs)
Question my question would be "why is it within scope?" - it is a very general paper with no apparent relevance, equally as text rather than an image it can just as easily be written somewhere. --Herby talk thyme 12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you want to have this file deleted? Can you explain what you mean by out of scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.127.5 (talk • contribs)
- Question my question would be "why is it within scope?" - it is a very general paper with no apparent relevance, equally as text rather than an image it can just as easily be written somewhere. --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you want to have this file deleted? Can you explain what you mean by out of scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.127.5 (talk • contribs)
- Question my question would be "why is it within scope?" - it is a very general paper with no apparent relevance, equally as text rather than an image it can just as easily be written somewhere. --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Mistakly uploaded a wrong file Pacific kiribati (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1944. Not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old. sугсго 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1945 not PD-Russia-2008, not PD-old sугсго 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1950 Not PD-Russia-2008, not pd-old. sугсго 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1955 Not PD-Russia-2008. Not PD-old. sугсго 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
le contributeur n'est pas le détenteur du droit d’auteur, Le CELSA (le véritable détenteur du droit d'auteur) ne souhaite pas fournir librement son logo. 195.220.213.128 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Spam? Flickrworker (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly, strongly doubt that this copyright release was valid. DS (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
and File:Johnyboy 1.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Original likely still copyrighted and photo thereby probably a derivative work. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
File still carries the copyright watermark from seeit360.net from which it was copied. WikiDan61 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality Peter.shaman (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the uploader that he edited this photo. But it is very unclear to me if he is the author of this photo. By the small size and bad quality I really doubt that he is the author. Avron (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says the photograph is unknown. So I relly doubt he is the copyright holder as he states later. Avron (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable company, article on en.wiki deleted Honza chodec (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly fine picture of a building in an interesting place. Looks in COM:SCOPE to me. Wknight94 talk 02:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. In the case of buildings, I don't think there's a requirement for notability here on Commons? It's a good photo. Could be useful, even if not in a Wikipedia article then perhaps by some other external site that may use this free media repository. Rept0n1x (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
per source: "Photo courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corp." Therefore not PD-NASA. myself488 talk 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a web grab: it is an aerial image which makes it unlikely that it is own work in this resolution 80.187.96.57 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Small image resolution and no valid EXIF information makes it doubtful that this photo is the uploader's own work 80.187.96.57 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Hey folks, go ahead and kill it. I've created a better image [LHA_as_CoH_Hospital_Ship.jpg] to replace that one. Thanks .. GHS 130.22.32.68 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bad quality crop from File:CAFRD.jpg with wrong author, date and license. Funfood ␌ 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal text logo, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Though the source of the file is http://korin.webzone.ru/bio/korin1.htm, there is no information whether it was published anonymously before Jan 1, 1943. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
File:La_caduta_del_dirigibile_Akron_illustrata_sulla_copertina_della_Domenica_del_Corriere.JPG
[edit]
Wrong license: Achille Beltrame died in 1945, so {{PD-old-70}} does not apply here. Razvan Socol (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation - Mdd is the designer of the interior, but Stichting Sofa seems to be the owner of the copyright of the picture of it. No OTRS ticket visible that permission was obtained from Stichting Sofa. Whaledad (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:Whaledad has misunderstood the template info. This is a picture made on my account in Winter 1994 and first published on the Stichting SOFA website around 2008 (see also here). This is just a representation of my own work, and I am the copyright-owner of the image. -- Mdd (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture wasn't made by you, but "on your account", you still need a release from the photographer. Whaledad (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding this picture, Mdd wrote on Feb 2 on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:KAST_kast_1992.jpg: "I just spook to the photographer of this picture, who promised to be cooperative and work with me on that.". On Feb 3 he wrote on this page: "* I have contacted the photographer to make new/better arrangements. I guess (by the end of) next week I will send confirmation to the OTRS system.". This last entry was removed by him on Feb 4 with the edit summary: "Sorry this is not going to happen now, maybe later this year." It would seem that the photographer (who had been located by Mdd) decided not to cooperate after all (at least not at this time). Whaledad (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just received written conformation, and now I have send my permission to the OTRS system. -- Mdd (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's great news. Thanks. Whaledad (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS Permission received, ticket #2012020510004915
- Withdrawing my deletion request accordingly. Whaledad (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Die Fotos auf der Wikipediaseite über mich ,sind von mir nicht autorisiert.Entfernen Sie die Fotos unverzüglich.Ulla Meinecke / Barunabeach ,am 30.1.2012,11:31. 88.73.153.180 10:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: The the necessary consent is missing. It is obviously an illegal photograph during a concert where photographs always are prohibited. It is counted as private place. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a private place --Looserates (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
llkjj Aliajesse (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This second nomination comes from an account who here has publicly claimed to be Ingo York. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- i can't see any copyrights violated. --JD {æ} 13:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per JD -- Sozi (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: The the necessary consent is missing. It is obviously an illegal photograph during a concert where photographs always are prohibited. It is counted as private place. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a private place --Looserates (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- a concert = "private place"? whose opinion is this? your linked commons page definitely doesn't apply: "Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy." --JD {æ} 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no copyright problems Denniss (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 13:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Fonticulus
[edit]- File:Ю. Н. Лебединский.JPG
- File:Сергей В. Михалков.JPG
- File:С. Михалков.JPG
- File:С. Айни.JPG
- File:С. А. Баруздин.JPG
- File:В. Д. Ряховский.JPG
- File:Николай Сухов.JPG
- File:Н. М. Иценко.JPG
- File:Н. И. Дубов.JPG
- File:Николай Н. Носов.JPG
- File:Михаил Кольцов.JPG
- File:Леонид Решетников.JPG
- File:А. А. Прокофьев.JPG
- File:С. В. Михалков.JPG
- File:С. А. Воронин.JPG
- File:Н. Н. Носов.JPG
- File:Н. П. Задорнов.JPG
- File:С. И. Кирсанов.JPG
- File:Савва Дангулов.JPG
- File:Самед Вургун.JPG
- File:М. И. Алигер.JPG
- File:Л. И. Славин.JPG
- File:И. А. Новиков.JPG
- File:В. Т. Лацис.JPG
- File:В. М. Кожевников.JPG
- File:В. А. Луговской.JPG
- File:В. И. Белов.JPG
- File:В. А. Сафонов.JPG
- File:В. В. Иванов.JPG
- File:А. И. Недогонов.JPG
- File:А. В. Софронов.JPG
- File:Ю. Д. Гончаров.JPG
- File:Троепольский.JPG
- File:Мирза Ибрагимов.JPG
- File:В. В. Полторацкий.JPG
- File:Юрий Казаков.JPG
- File:А. Б. Чаковский.JPG
- File:Фёдор Панфёров.JPG
- File:Л. С. Соболев.JPG
- File:П. И. Замойский.JPG
- File:Ф. В. Гладков.JPG
- File:С. Т. Григорьев.JPG
- File:Олесь Гончар.JPG
- File:М. П. Прилежаева.JPG
- File:М. К. Луконин.JPG
- File:Л. В. Соловьёв.JPG
- File:К. М. Симонов.JPG
- File:К. А. Федин.JPG
- File:Е. М. Винокуров.JPG
- File:Е. А. Исаев.JPG
- File:В. А. Осеева.JPG
- File:В. М. Инбер.JPG
- File:В. А. Каверин.JPG
- File:А. В. Кожевников.JPG
- File:А. Н. Степанов.JPG
- File:А. А. Антоновская.JPG
- File:Микола Бажан.JPG
- File:Л. И. Лагин.JPG
- File:Ю. И. Яновский.JPG
- File:Рильський.JPG
- File:С. П. Бородин.JPG
- File:Wanda L. Wasilewska.JPG
- File:И. Л. Сельвинский.JPG
- File:Vilis Lacis.JPG
- File:Venclova.JPG
- File:August Jakobson.JPG
- File:Чжоу Либо.JPG
- File:Сартаков.JPG
- File:Ю. В. Бондарев.JPG
- File:С. П. Алексеев.JPG
- File:Н. С. Тихонов.JPG
- File:Мехти Гусейн.JPG
- File:Мария Марич.JPG
- File:М. Д. Соколов.JPG
- File:Коптяева А. Д.JPG
- File:Козлов И. А.JPG
- File:Замятин В. Д..JPG
- File:Б. Галин.JPG
- File:Джамбул.JPG
- File:Medynsky GA.JPG
- File:Kozhevnikov AV.JPG
- File:Yakobson AM.JPG
- File:Sobko VN.JPG
- File:Korneytschuk Alexandr.JPG
- File:Muratov IL.JPG
- File:Ilienko VP.JPG
- File:Мальцев Елизар.JPG
- File:Мальцев Орест.JPG
- File:Nikitin NN.JPG
- File:Миклай Казаков.JPG
- File:Степан Олейник.JPG
- File:Поэт В. М. Гусев.JPG
- File:Pavlenko PA.JPG
(more to come)
User:Алый Король notified me that User:Fonticulus has confirmed (likely here) to have uploaded lots of files without knowing whether they are free or not. Therefore I am nominating all of his uploads in order to allow for discussion whether some images are already PD or otherwise o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Zllobin SP.JPG is also doubtful. Dmitry89 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Blackburn2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]promotional material, signature cards, different sources (EXIF), … permission?
- File:Augsburger Allgemeine 01.2012.jpg Author at Augsburger Allgemeine: Marcus Merk. --Martin H. (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Tina Schüßler Bericht Stadtzeitung Augsburg 2012.PNG
- File:Logo 2012 Tina Schüßler.PNG
- File:Tina Schüßler Homepage.PNG
- File:Tina Schüßler Dez.2011.JPG
File:Tina Schüßler beim Sat.1 TV-Dreh Sept.2011 "Mein Mann kann".JPGDeletion request removed per valid OTRS permission. --Krd (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)- File:Tina Schüßler mit Freund Paul Metz.JPG
Polarlys (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- New user, explained at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Blackburn2001#Bilder. I guess permission is likely. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Alle meine Fotos die ich hier auf Wikimedia Commons eingestellt habe, sind meine eigenen Werke, die mit dem iPhone oder mit meiner eigenen Fotokamera geschossen wurden. Sie dürfen freigeschaltet werden. Die Lizenz und Rechte jedes einzelnen Bildes liegen somit bei mir selber. Auch meine Logos wurden selbst von mir enworfen und somit bin ich der Urheber. Blackburn2001 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Blackburn2001, danke für deinen Kommentar. Für Logos und sonstige andersweitig veröffentlichten Bilder, benötigen wir eine Bestätigung per E-Mail durch den Fotografen, siehe COM:OTRS/de. Von wem wurden denn die beiden Zeitungsfotos fotografiert? Doch nicht von dir, oder? Und von wem wurden die sonstigen Fotos fotografiert? Es geht nicht darum, wem die Kamera gehört, oder wer abgebildet ist (derjenige, der die Fotos hochläd, braucht natürlich die Erlaubnis von der fotografierten Person zum Veröffentlichen - aus Persönlichkeitsrechtsgründen). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Blackburn2001, ich möchte auch noch mal kurz für Verwirrung sorgen. Wenn du zum Foto-Laden um die Ecke gehst und dir Passfotos oder Bewerbungsfotos machen lässt darfst du die Fotos bezahlen und auch für deine Zwecke verwenden aber das Urheberrecht liegt beim Fotografen (es sei denn vertraglich ist etwas Anderes vereinbart). Klingt komisch ist aber wohl so. Wikipedia muss ganz streng das Urheberrecht beachten, es könnten sonst Schadensersatzforderungen drohen...
- Genauso streng sind die Persönlichkeitsrechte zu beachten. Der Fotograf deiner Pass- oder Bewerbungsfotos darf diese auch nicht ohne dein Einverständnis veröffentlichen (es sei denn vertraglich ist etwas Anderes vereinbart). LG --1971markus (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Info From email communication: Permission emails will be send very soon (tomorrow, ...). --Saibo (Δ) 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)- The remaining permissions will probably be sent tomorrow. --Saibo (Δ) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
kept - All files got documented permission via OTRS now (as requested in the nomination text here) --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Sparrowlives
[edit]
These images were all uploaded by me, Sparrowlives. I believe they should be deleted because [they are copyrighted, and I did not mean to make them a common image]. Sparrowlives (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that it is own work. {{NASA-image}} might apply. Opinions? Leyo 16:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The animation is on this NASA web page. --AlphaEta (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the source. Now, we can probably keep the file. --Leyo 15:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find a photo ID to use with the {{NASA-image}} template. Maybe {{PD-USGov-NASA}} and setting the Source to be the actual URL (good find, AlphaEta! w:WP:TROUT to the transferer for not checking that there is actual source info!) is good enough for now? I don't see anything specific on the source-page at NASA to suggest it's from some other source or has restrictions on use, so Keep with adjusted tags. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find a photo ID to use with the {{NASA-image}} template. Maybe {{PD-USGov-NASA}} and setting the Source to be the actual URL (good find, AlphaEta! w:WP:TROUT to the transferer for not checking that there is actual source info!) is good enough for now? I don't see anything specific on the source-page at NASA to suggest it's from some other source or has restrictions on use, so
- Keep PD-NASA /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to accept the statement by Leyo as a withdrawal
Kept, Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Simple? Does the middle bit of the crest fail commons simple rules? Flickrworker (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per the license. The Indian emblem is the only real complicated part, and is PD. The rest is some leaves and two banners. Fry1989 eh? 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Info I added to the following file:
this was marked as cpvio, but its the sam case like the file. --JuTa 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Royal Coat is independent of the copyright status but MI6 logo is still copyrighted. So, IMO the file under discussion fails the "simple" criteria.—Bill william comptonTalk 13:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's hardly an equal comparison. First, this is India, different copyright laws are in force. Second, the MI6 logo is copyrighted because it's a screenshot, if someone made an SVG of it for Commons it would be free because the only addiction is some basic text to the Royal Government arms. 20:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: w:Lion Capital of Asoka is PD. The rest is too trivial. Yann (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I nominate for deletion only second revision of this image, as there is no proof of permission Bulwersator (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean the image uploaded by Juniper99, not the present one.
- "I nominate for deletion only second revision of this image" Bulwersator (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The text of the second uploader states (Replacement image. The previously posted image was without my permission, taken at a Church Service following the death of my Father. While I am sure well intentioned it is a picture from a very painful time, where i am visibly trying to hold it together.)
- Is it likely to be written by Elisa Gabrielli? If it was, this would be a deletion request for the first (and present) version based on personality rights.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh - see also Commons:Village_pump#Image_overwrite.3F Bulwersator (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you for the link. I see that at the moment there isn't an actual ground to delete the first picture, just the suspected copyvio.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The second image is a scanned image, see the border at the bottom. To me it looks the overwritten image will require OTRS permission. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Photo by Stacie Isabella Turk" (?) Bulwersator (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The upload appears to have been done by the pictured person, who quite conceivably obtained rights for her own publicity photograph (which of course would have been taken by a professional photographer). The source of that one is here. The same user made a botched DR (or maybe speedy delete) on the first image a couple of months back. So, there is a separate deletion reason for the first image -- taken in a somewhat private setting, and is an unwelcome reminder of a tough personal time. Possibly privacy rights (though that's doubtful), and definitely a valid reason for a special-case deletion, if true. I have to admit, it does all ring true to me. The user did provide a replacement image. It would definitely help matters though if that actress would send an email, to the address mentioned at COM:OTRS, confirming that the user account is indeed her, and also confirming the CC-BY-SA license for that publicity photograph. It may also be a good idea to upload the replacement as a different file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Photo by Stacie Isabella Turk" (?) Bulwersator (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete both versions. Delete the first for the reason given by someone likely to be the subject, and the second for lack of certainty about the copyright and for being at the wrong filename. Hopefully the subject will confirm permission to OTRS and upload under a new name. Rd232 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It's somewhat strange how some users believe to any random BS that came from unknown unconfirmed sources. Obviously, it's not a photo from somebody's memorial service. People cheer around, the subject smiles as well and poses for the photo, the person near wears red T-shirt with "HO HO HO" inscription. It's a photo from a Christmas Eve service as was claimed by the original uploader. No reason not to believe to the first uploader, and no reason to believe to the second one. Trycatch (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion-requesting user did not claim it was from a memorial service -- just that it was a church event which occurred shortly after her father's death. Sounds like it brings back some painful memories for her, that's all, and it's her main wikipedia page image. If it wasn't for the botched speedy delete from almost three months ago, showing a certain persistence in the matter (with the second attempt trying to allow us a replacement image, but not knowing the licensing formalities), I probably would be more skeptical. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And probably she prefers having a better image in her page - if she is she and not just a fan. I'd would be very good for Commons that all celebrities released a good photo of themselves under a free license. Anyway, we could have both photos under different names, and all or most projects would use the good one.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Carl Lindberg. Thanks for the explanations. I fail to see the moral problem then. If you don't want to be photographed -- do not pose for the photograph. Maybe the photo is too visible in the Internet (of course, it was not expectable that random casual photo will be used in the Wikipedia's article infobox about you), but it can be solved by removing it from the Wikipedia article. Btw I don't mind if the picture will be deleted, if the license on the second one will be cleared. Trycatch (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- "If you don't want to be photographed -- do not pose for the photograph." - You really should read COM:BLP and the WMF resolution. Consent to be photographed in a private context is not consent for publication (morally, at least; IANAL). Rd232 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a private context, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, and you don't need to ask for consent for publication of a photograph taken in a public place. It seems you didn't read the very guideline you are linking to. (Btw, thanks, I read that resolution long time ago. It was immediately obvious at the time that the resolution will be misused to justify deletion of completely fine pictures, disliked by depicted celebrities for a random reason.) Trycatch (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I agree it's not really a privacy issue (especially in the U.S.). The photographer did nothing wrong. I'd never guess there was any issue with the photo just looking at it myself -- looks pretty good for quick snapshot, actually. But something can still unexpectedly cause some distress; that's the only grounds I'd consider it on. Perhaps it would be best to see if the uploader wishes it deleted in light of the request, though this upload is that person's only activity here. Getting permission for the other photo may be the best way to go (that would almost certainly become the preferred photo for articles). In looking more, User:Juniper99 has been involved in her article on en-wiki; in a deletion discussion here there is also the claim it's the same person (including mention of a Real Life meeting with another editor). I still think it's legitimately her, though getting careful permission via COM:OTRS for the other image is obviously preferable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now it looks better Bulwersator (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You could try and figure out the nature of our disagreement rather than be somewhat rude. The disagreement is about this part: Commons:BLP#What_are_.27public.27_and_.27private.27_places.3F. Is a service a place with a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? It's not cut-and-dried, but I'd say it's not somewhere you expect people to take photographs; and there's also a privacy element to the fact that services will largely be members of a sort of "club". In any case, the internet age has to recognise degrees of privacy. Consent for someone you know to take a photo for what you assume is private use is not consent for that image to be published online for all the world to see, nor for it to be used in one of the most prominent online locations that exists (your Wikipedia entry). Same as if you tell a friend an embarrassing secret, that's not a consent for that secret to be splashed all over Facebook, never mind to be published in a newspaper. Rd232 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was a regular church event, not particularly a service, I think. And yes, I don't think, in the U.S. anyways, that constitutes a private place -- there are people there outside of a normal friends and family setting. I don't think you have a reasonable expectation there that any behavior would remain private. And even in your friend's secret example, I don't think that would run afoul of U.S. privacy laws either -- the secret was given up voluntarily in that case. Looking at en:expectation of privacy, the expectation really only exists in places like one's home, or a hotel room, or inside a bathroom or phone booth, and things like that. This was basically a public event, from the sounds of it. Not expecting a photo to end up on Wikipedia is not the same as an objective expectation of privacy. Now, we may consider deletion anyways given the special request, but I don't think it should be done on straight privacy grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I agree it's not really a privacy issue (especially in the U.S.). The photographer did nothing wrong. I'd never guess there was any issue with the photo just looking at it myself -- looks pretty good for quick snapshot, actually. But something can still unexpectedly cause some distress; that's the only grounds I'd consider it on. Perhaps it would be best to see if the uploader wishes it deleted in light of the request, though this upload is that person's only activity here. Getting permission for the other photo may be the best way to go (that would almost certainly become the preferred photo for articles). In looking more, User:Juniper99 has been involved in her article on en-wiki; in a deletion discussion here there is also the claim it's the same person (including mention of a Real Life meeting with another editor). I still think it's legitimately her, though getting careful permission via COM:OTRS for the other image is obviously preferable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a private context, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, and you don't need to ask for consent for publication of a photograph taken in a public place. It seems you didn't read the very guideline you are linking to. (Btw, thanks, I read that resolution long time ago. It was immediately obvious at the time that the resolution will be misused to justify deletion of completely fine pictures, disliked by depicted celebrities for a random reason.) Trycatch (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- "If you don't want to be photographed -- do not pose for the photograph." - You really should read COM:BLP and the WMF resolution. Consent to be photographed in a private context is not consent for publication (morally, at least; IANAL). Rd232 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Carl Lindberg. Thanks for the explanations. I fail to see the moral problem then. If you don't want to be photographed -- do not pose for the photograph. Maybe the photo is too visible in the Internet (of course, it was not expectable that random casual photo will be used in the Wikipedia's article infobox about you), but it can be solved by removing it from the Wikipedia article. Btw I don't mind if the picture will be deleted, if the license on the second one will be cleared. Trycatch (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And probably she prefers having a better image in her page - if she is she and not just a fan. I'd would be very good for Commons that all celebrities released a good photo of themselves under a free license. Anyway, we could have both photos under different names, and all or most projects would use the good one.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion-requesting user did not claim it was from a memorial service -- just that it was a church event which occurred shortly after her father's death. Sounds like it brings back some painful memories for her, that's all, and it's her main wikipedia page image. If it wasn't for the botched speedy delete from almost three months ago, showing a certain persistence in the matter (with the second attempt trying to allow us a replacement image, but not knowing the licensing formalities), I probably would be more skeptical. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep – The nominated, second revision, has already been overwritten; this makes this deletion request obsolete. Formally, there is no request here to delete the original (and current) version. Even if we infer a deletion request for that version, I'd suggest something more convincing and authoritative is required. As Trycatch wrote: "No reason not to believe to the first uploader, and no reason to believe to the second one." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the image is a copyrighted one without permission, the overwritten revision should be hidded, since showing it in history would be copyvio. This is what this deletion request is about.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Second uploader answered at User talk:Juniper99. Can anybody used to permission messages and so help her, please? I still doubt that she is who she says to be, but we should check before closing deletion request.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment AT least if the (likely-to-be) Depicted provides us a valid permission for her image version (currently the 2nd file rev), we should grant her deletion wish for the image against which she objects, per courtesy and the WMF resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted old lower-quality image as a courtesy to the subject, who provided an image that is superiour for most practical purposes. If there are questions about the uploader of the current revision having proper rights to release the work, please renominate separately for that. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
big doubts : no exif, seem to be an "expanded picture" from lower definition, seem being copied (dark strips on borders) --MGuf (d) 11:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Photo Travail personnel {{GFDL}} ! MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 09:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Si c'est vraiment perso, télécharge une version correcte, avec des EXIF. J'ai de gros doutes, sinon...
- Big doubts, because the picture is very low quality, and no EXIF... ----MGuf (d) 17:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: User has no history of copyvio. Could not find this photo elsewhere online. Although it is low-quality, no sufficient reason to doubt claim of own work. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Rudolf-Hillebrecht-Platz_Hannover_Bauverwaltung_Büste_Stadtbaurat_Rudolf_Hillebrecht_Bildhauer_Siegfried_Zimmermann.jpg
[edit]
Urherberrechtsverstoss. Der Urheber Siegfried Zimmermann hat der Lizenz nicht zugestimmt (keine Panoramafreiheit) 79.215.148.226 13:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Panoramafreiheit ist
- gegeben
- Dreidimensionales Werk --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: From what I can understand of the German, this was a permanently installed sculpture and was taken in a public place in Hannover, Germany, so Commons:Freedom of panorama applies. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Rudolf-Hillebrecht-Platz Hannover Bauverwaltung Büste Stadtbaurat Rudolf Hillebrecht Bildhauer Siegfried Zimmermann.jpg
[edit]
Freedom of panorama does not apply for indoors photography. This sculpture is installed indoors and there is no permission for a free use by the creator.
The previous deletion request was closed on an incorrect base 178.7.226.198 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "Public place" in this instance does not distinguish between indoors and outdoors. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously a wrong decission by Bastique. This sculpture is not covered by the FOP in Germany because it is placed indoors and as such we need a permission by the creator which we do not have. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I concur with High Contrast's reversal. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This issue here is a blatant violation of German FOP-regulations. It is against the COM:PP. --High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This user has uploaded a number of images from living painters without permission. I am not sure whether this is another of those, in which case it is a copvio, or actually his own work, as claimed, in which case it is probably out of scope as personal art. I note that the uploader has created an article on Jacqueline Oyex on WP:FR, with this image in it, so it is technically in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader is not the artist, no free art. ----MGuf (d) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: On fr:Jacqueline Oyex it is captioned "La tireuse de cartes" (The fortune teller), a title, suggesting it is a work by Oyex rather than of her. As such it is clearly still under non-free copyright. This is consistent with the uploader's history - we can't trust any claim of own work by them. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
