Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
All of this editor's other uploads have been blatant copyvios. I am doubtful of this as well, but cannot track down the source. No EXIF data and the image being in web resolution makes it very unlikely to belong to the uploader. With his history... Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Berthold Werner (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: license fixed Denniss (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Proprietary copyrighted OR nonsense. No use for anyone but the salesman. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 12:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unusued personal image, no educational value. Appears to be taken in a private location with no evidence of subjects' permission. QU TalkQu 12:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
False self work: ex: http://o-sobrenatural.spaceblog.com.br/1270969/atriz-sienna-guillory-confirma-retorno-a-resident-evil-5/ André Koehne TALK TO ME 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Arfa Karim is a notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. --Polarlys (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Polarlys (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
A user is claiming ownership of this image (in spanish) Antonorsi (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Elya (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Photo taken in Vegas during AVN Awards 2010, I don't know who is she, she's not famous, but she's a porn model or actress. Someone knows her name? Consortium (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Her name is Jennifer White, an american pornstar! 80.214.5.23 10:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader indef blocked with serious copyvio history, (picture without exif), can not be kept Neozoon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Elya (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader is indef blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts" and has a history of copyvio uploads. This picture claims to show a person with name and is not ok according our rules for identiable people Neozoon (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Elya (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good stuff, I Like Mid-chick's cheeks! What's her name? 80.214.9.5 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pic of my girlfriend, she's a artistic nude model. She is okay. She's is beautiful isnt it? I don't give her name, you understand why, thanks! If it's a problem, I can erase by myself, no problemo! See ya! Consortium (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's sad, I don't see the asshole! 80.214.5.23 10:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- hey, that's funny because i don't see the point of your contributions to this deletion request. —Pill (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied by Neozoon as copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - see also the deleted page Krigarskapet. Trijnstel (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
credit on image instead of on image info page —Eustress talk 03:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - You should be tagging the image with {{Watermark}} rather than nominating the image for deletion.--Sreejith K (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the template. Can you direct me to a policy section, however, that says credits on the image itself are permissable? I searched and searched to no avail and have never come across any other images with such credits. —Eustress talk 01:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Credits on the image itself is discouraged, but that's not a reason for deletion. We have image editing tools which can help remove the credits easily. Can you see the text in the template {{Watermark}} and check whether it explains the policy properly? If not, we can suggest improvements to the template. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the template. Can you direct me to a policy section, however, that says credits on the image itself are permissable? I searched and searched to no avail and have never come across any other images with such credits. —Eustress talk 01:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Watermark is not a valid reason for image deletion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- speedy keep The watermark was removed yet. I also have added the attribution on the cc license and the template {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} to remark the changes. Lobo (howl?) 00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 18#File:German soldier memorial statue 1918 in Lahti of Finland.jpg; not free until 2045. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Screen shot of non free website with non free browser. Moros y Cristianos 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Scandinavian Airlines logo.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant. |EPO| da: 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Can be written with normal text to some wikipedia, out of scope Motopark (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope - copyvio as a scan - speedy to me --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Herby Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
article deleted, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No own work, cover found e.g. here http://indy.livemixtapes.com/mixtapes/12195/erika_kayne_eday.html Funfood ␌ 20:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of copyrighted statue, FOP does not apply. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not used anywhere. Purpose of this picture seems to be self glorification. Whaledad (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unlike Whaledad, some people choose to participate on Wikipedia with their own name and with their own face. But sometimes, the editing environment gets too depressing. This was used as a user image here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php has stated that images from the site are "generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes" so they are not free enough for us. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It also says that New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction. Visit the NASA website "Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites" for more information. The latter page says that NASA images are not copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- On that page "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." And in this case, copyright is claimed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- What you said is just silly. The statement actually means that as far as copyright is concerned New Horizons images are NASA images. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- And with this case of NASA images, they are protected by copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that under US law, NASA cannot legally hold copyright over anything which it has itself produced. I'm not a legal expert though, so I could be wrong. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 13:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- And with this case of NASA images, they are protected by copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- What you said is just silly. The statement actually means that as far as copyright is concerned New Horizons images are NASA images. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- On that page "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." And in this case, copyright is claimed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Its a NASA spacecraft and the images appear to be from NASA. My understanding of US law is the same as WD, and therefore, the image is not copyrighted.--NavyBlue84 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the time, NASA images are not under copyright and are indeed public domain. However, these ones are claimed by copyright and under the image use policies for NASA, which is linked in this request, they are able to claim copyright on works that they choose. Plus, not to mention, you have a lot more people than NASA working on this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – The policy on the New Horizons site only requires that we avoid using the name of NASA or John Hopkins as an endorsement. It explicitly adheres to the general policy on NASA image use, which has already been established as allowed. Regards, 130.76.32.215 15:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes, so long as their use does not convey NASA's, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's or Southwest Research Institute's implicit or explicit endorsement of any goods or services." We must have images for commercial reuse as a policy for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are just repeating yourself. The second clause also applies: "New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction." The first clause is an inclusive statement, so a logical OR applies. Ergo, keep. Regards, 130.76.32.215 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html says images are "generally not copyrighted" and http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use." So they are copyrighted and NASA does allow for copyrighting of their works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, what do the words "unless noted" mean to you? It means a copyright must be explicitly stated. No copyright is specifically noted; any that you are perceiving is at best implied. I believe that makes it usable.
At this point I'm done arguing. My preference stands as is.Regards, 130.76.32.215 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)- Since you asked, NASA works are not copyrighted unless otherwise stated (like in the case of this image and others related to New Horizons). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Neither of us appear to be lawyers. Ergo, I hold your assertion to be doubtful at best, and I am retaining the position that you are almost certainly wrong just based upon logic. It would be better to handle this at a higher level and get a more informed opinion. Until that happens, we are at an impasse and I shall retain my preference. Regards, RJHall (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am just going off what the NASA and NH site are saying about the images, but I agree that we need to get more eyes on this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Neither of us appear to be lawyers. Ergo, I hold your assertion to be doubtful at best, and I am retaining the position that you are almost certainly wrong just based upon logic. It would be better to handle this at a higher level and get a more informed opinion. Until that happens, we are at an impasse and I shall retain my preference. Regards, RJHall (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since you asked, NASA works are not copyrighted unless otherwise stated (like in the case of this image and others related to New Horizons). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html says images are "generally not copyrighted" and http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use." So they are copyrighted and NASA does allow for copyrighting of their works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are just repeating yourself. The second clause also applies: "New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction." The first clause is an inclusive statement, so a logical OR applies. Ergo, keep. Regards, 130.76.32.215 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Public domain image. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Usage rules don't appear to be any different than other NASA images.--Craigboy (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm not an expert on this subject, but it seems as though a disclaimer forbidding use of US government images for endorsement or advertising is fairly standard for many agencies. A very brief search yielded similar language from the National Weather Service, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Park Service. If we delete NASA images due to this no endorsement statement, it may set a precedent for the deletion of many more images produced by the US government. --AlphaEta (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is beyond our control and that is more what the end user does with; they just don't want the NASA name or logo used to imply endorsement. If images are public domain, then they are. In this case, what I am trying to point out is while this is a NASA project and mission, copyright is claimed on these images from New Horizons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see, I misunderstood some of the statements above. I may be overlooking it, but I can't seem to find an explicit claim to copyright on the use policy page. So the argument for deletion is that because the use policy for New Horizons images notes they are "generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes", and does not specifically state that they are in the public domain, they may be protected by copyright and thus are not free enough for Commons? --AlphaEta (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I pasted some of the earlier texts, so it would be redundant for me to repaste the policies. My point for deletion is that the images are for non-commercial use only and, under our policies, images must be available for commercial reuse as a condition to be hosted here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The specific restriction on commercial reuse does technically mean New Horizons images are not freely licensed according to Commons policy (here's a link for newbies like me). I don't feel very strongly about it, but if that is indeed the case, I suppose the image should probably be deleted. Thanks, --AlphaEta (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- "images for non-commercial use only" is a lie. The image use policy does not say this, and it actually says that NASA image use policy applies, which means that images are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Public domain image for "non-commercial educational and public information purposes". Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The source site has a clear NC statement. Commons does not accept NC images. This image was not created by NASA, but by a NASA contractor. PD-gov does not apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree file. Original source here. No copyright information given on the page but perhaps rests with the owner. Lovysinghal (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of permission. No reason to believe that our uploader is actually the photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly copyrighted image of a living person, no proper copyright claimed The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Well, if you follow the link to the source you can see that the photo have a Creative Commons licence. /Rrohdin (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded this. As Rrohdin states, the image was properly licensed under a cc-by 3.0 license, and was done so by the Royal Swedish Opera through their account at mynewsdesk.com. --Bensin (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just added {{LicenseReview}} to have the license reviewed. --Bensin (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Properly marked up with source, creator and license from the source. /Esquilo (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I can't read Swedish, does the page that the image resides on have copyright information? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. There is a Creative Commons logo right under the image with a link to CC-BY-3.0. Don't need to understand Swedish to find that one. /Esquilo (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Bensin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Waze software is under GPL, but here maps are copyrighted. As a matter of fact a screenshot is forbiden on commons. matanya • talk 07:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Move to English Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- since version 3 the software is not free. this photo is of version 3. Hidro (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously modern (sculptor's name not provided) work of art and thereby still copyrighted. Freedom-of-panorama exemption in Hungary (article 68 of the Hungarian copyright law (1999/LXXVI)) requires permanent installation "outdoors" which is not the case here (underground station). --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The same problem applies to all media in Category:Statue of Tiresias (Budapest). --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
When I visited Budapest this statue was in the metro station. I believe that underground station is under that category but I am not a lawyer.
--Yoavd (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Section 68 (1) of the HUngarian copyright law is clear that it must be outdoors. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence provided that this image is really a work of a US governmental employee (according to the licencing regulations of Commons). The source statement of the uploader is not based on any source and can be inaccurate. 80.187.110.217 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a personal photo of me that my wife took that I never cleared to be associated with a Wikipedia article about a band I used to be in. Benarpmusic (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
obviously it consists of NOT only simple geometric shapes and/or text. DS-fax 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep compared to many examples on COM:Threshold of originality. Bencmq (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Contains simple geometric shapes and text. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of an unidentified individual. No educational value. QU TalkQu 12:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Very poor quality image, unused. Dubious educational value - looks like someone's private photo collection QU TalkQu 12:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be artwork inside Carnegie Science Center. Fails COM:FOP#United States. The place opened after 1978, so this would count as unpublished. Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Pac-Man ghost is a copyrighted character. (Fair use in en) --Kungfuman (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Diego Moya (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Derivative of copyrighted chararcter. --Kungfuman (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see that they are "clearly copyrighted" as you say, since copyright of characters is a muddy area. Do you have evidence that these characters do indeed have a copyright, and not just a trademark? Or are you going by gut feeling? Diego Moya (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pac-Man Cutscene.svg All commercial video games/franchise and contents and chararcters are copyrighted (except for those of an extremely simple shape like the Pac Man pie which is not the case of the ghosts). The ghosts even have names. Obviously derivative work. --Kungfuman (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Evidence of copyright? Character, not game.Diego Moya (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this is a derivative work of commercial video game characters which are included in a copyrighted game. All content is c) R). You are'nt allowed to make free content out of copyrighted games and franchises so anyone can use it even for commercial purposes. Please read the del request of the other image. --Kungfuman (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright of cartoon characters is not at all muddy -- Mickey Mouse, for example. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Very poor quality unused personal image of unidentified individual, no educational value QU TalkQu 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of unidentified individual. Looks like a personal image. Probably taken in a private location, no evidence of subject's permission QU TalkQu 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, strange angles, replaced by File:Tiffeneau-Demjanov rearrangement.png. Leyo 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 03:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Virtually a duplicate of File:Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor - Flickr image 5938295386.jpg, but with a spot in the hair left of the ear. Leyo 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, this qualifies as a duplicate. This file is unused. Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Looks too close to keep as a separate file, the colour is also worse. Techman224Talk 01:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, unused following deletion of en:wp article (via AfD as not notable). No educational value. QU TalkQu 12:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a personal image (Michael Eckstein produces no results from a notable person), is unused and of no educational value QU TalkQu 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Stated as own work but is clearly a corporate image. No evidence of permission. Is unused and no educational value likely even if it isn't copyright (which I reckon it is) QU TalkQu 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No educational content and probably copyright violation. --GeorgHH • talk 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small for being useful, rights not clear, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Der Urheber der Datei Kecko wurde wegen dieser Datei angeklagt von den Schweizer Behörden wegen Veröffentlichung geheimer Informationen. 83.76.93.26 10:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Educational and free image. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - interesting, see also http://www.flickr.com/photos/kecko/6831881577/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
press photo, no free license Polarlys (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - from http://www.moist.se/gallery.php /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyright violation, can be found on various websites before this upload date (http://prensalibre.com/decision_libre_-_actualidad/GENERAL-BUSCA-GOBERNAR_0_524347585.html e.g.) Polarlys (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - it is also in the next DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
no license for the photograph and no evidence of permission for its use. Eeekster (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - This photo is also available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=41916. --Sreejith K (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The second revision is unlikely to be free per COM:TOO#UK. The first revision might be free; I'm not sure. Stefan4 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete both the versions. The current one is not free and the first one is {{Out of scope}} --Sreejith K (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Derivative work: scenography by Władysław Daszewski still under copyright A.J. (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-Poland}} is for photos; not clear to me what Polish law says for paintings in photos; probably best to Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if it might have been taken from a newspaper, so the licence might be wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Licence is the same licence given by the original uploader when the image was uploaded in 2006 on the English Wikipedia here. Osarius (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but that licence statement is likely wrong. If you look at the uploader's talk page at English Wikipedia, you see that the uploader has got all of his other uploads deleted because of copyright reasons. en:Special:ListFiles/Sunil ns nair tells that all of his files have been either deleted or overwritten. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems to be a 2005 photo from a print publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Ts12rAc (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete - F10 and/or G10. Used on userpage of a user who registered to make personal promotion. Is this also a "deleted file re-uploaded" case? If not, this time he took even Gandhi behind to save his OoS pic, but IMHO in vain. --E4024 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Again... Osarius (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I should note that these are five different images that have had this name and been deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Very low-quality (self-?)portrait of a "professional wrestling referee" (which only has one reference to Facebook) that is orphaned and out of scope. Logan Talk Contributions 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Converted from speedy. Original reason was "Per author request, no FOP in Morocco." --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a press photo from a massacre in the 70s, I highly doubt uploader is author. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious info. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Temporary/test file, apparently not in use. Deletable per COM:SCOPE. Closeapple (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- How do you know it's copyrighted? I made this file on paint. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag-map of Colombia.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag map of Argentina.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dubious info. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Please delete this file. This is a joint request by author Thorsten Murr and uploader Blueser2805 in agreement with Ingo York. Thorsten Murr will also send an e-mail to permissions-de@wikimedia.org to confirm his identity. In other way you can contact the author here: [1]. Blueser2805 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Info For related discussion about the article Ingo York and use of unauthorized photographs also look at
- --Blueser2805 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There's no problem with the image or its license, it's a problem of the depicted person who, despite being a musician and playing in concerts open for the public and having been a member of a known music group, does not like to see images from him anywhere. --Denniss (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's not essential to keep a file, which was uploaded in december 2011 and only used in one article if author, uploader and shown musician vote to delete it. Delete --Blueser2805 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am the photographer of this pic. If a person was shot by me and feel hurt by this photo and its context I'm not going to show more of this photography in public. Whether current legal standards or the rules allow it or not on Wikipedia. Thorsten Murr, "snap-x64" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snap-x64 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - good photo, in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the person on this photo is demanding its removal immediately. violation of copyright by WP 10:23, february.18.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
- No, it is not a violation of copyright: there is a CC-BY-SA license, verified with an OTRS ticket; Creative-Commons licenses are irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- photographer withdraws the right for publishing by WP! ps: everything is irrevocable. it is simple arbitrariness from your side and nothing else. x 11:20/ febr.18.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
- this is only arbitrariness by WP and people like you (user:pieter kuiper). you just deleted my entry-note... and that is clear proof of my statement ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
- I did not delete anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was actually me, no need to keep trolling comments. --Denniss (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did not delete anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- this is only arbitrariness by WP and people like you (user:pieter kuiper). you just deleted my entry-note... and that is clear proof of my statement ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
- photographer withdraws the right for publishing by WP! ps: everything is irrevocable. it is simple arbitrariness from your side and nothing else. x 11:20/ febr.18.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
- No, it is not a violation of copyright: there is a CC-BY-SA license, verified with an OTRS ticket; Creative-Commons licenses are irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment each unsigned vote is not helpful ! Please sign any comment with --~~~~
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper et. al. License is verified by OTRS and not revocable, pic in use, no infringement of personality rights (a good shot of a musician at work, at a public concert), no "authorisation" by the depicted person needed. --Amga (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not longer a question of licenses, it's a question of ethics. --Snap-x64 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it is - the ethics of us having been given the image which was fully and properly licensed. --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nur weil etwas rechtens ist, ist es noch lange nicht richtig.--Snap-x64 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That translate for me as Just because something is legal, it is far from true. The issue is that this image has licensing via OTRS which means that it was made with a full knowledge of what that license meant and that license is irrevocable. --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)--
- Nur weil etwas rechtens ist, ist es noch lange nicht richtig.--Snap-x64 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it is - the ethics of us having been given the image which was fully and properly licensed. --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In real life everything is revocable - and we are talking here about a simple photo. (btw: with "richtig" I mean "correct" - so I would translate it.)--Snap-x64 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Erh, no. In real life, perpetual licenses are, well, perpetual. You can't revoke it any more than you can revoke a contract of sale simply because you changed your mind several months down the line. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The IP edits on this seem to be mostly from open Proxies. I suggest protecting this page if such edits continue as there can be no certainly that it is not the work of one person. --Herby talk thyme 14:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
--- You can check my ID 24h/day on my website www.clearworder.de ... (I will insert here a copy of the following lines - look at "Kosmos" - also you can google this following lines and you'll find to my website :-)) We're not talking about a contract of sale, we're talking about a foto of a person. I gave the license for illustrating some true informations about a band. Now wp is using my foto to illustrate informations which are not true and hurting this person. That's the difference. (If you want to compare with a contract of sale: If you purchased a product that turns out in retrospect to be incorrect, you can cancel the contract as well.)--Snap-x64 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting to see how quickly you came back after the open proxies were barred from continuing. The license you issued is perpetual (irrevocable). You cannot revoke it, not even with reference to some completely irrelevant consumer protection laws. The photograph is used in de:Ingo York with the caption "Ingo York (2011)". This seems to be a photo of Ingo York taken in 2001, so that seems to be true, and I don't see how that's hurting the person. Even if there are factual errors in the article, removing the photo would not be an effective way of correcting them. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- you're mixing up two completely different things here: you obviously think that you "gave the license for illustrating ... informations ..." to wikipedia (citation from your website: "Freigabe meiner Fotos für Wikipedia"). well, you didn't - you licensed your work under the conditions of cc-by-sa. the only way i can see you could probably try to have your image deleted is to wish for its deletion if the original mail contact for licensing your image(s) misleadingly talked about "free use for wikipedia". --JD {æ} 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-- @the user LX above: What do you mean by "open proxies"? I use my normal PC. He stands in front of me on my desk. Comparison with a sales contract is not mine, but by another user, a few lines above. I just reacted. Just as I react to the fact that the photographed person feels hurt. This is not "interesting", that is sad. And very simple. -- @the user JD: Right, I mix things, because I basically just a matter that the photo will be deleted, because there is a real person feels offended by the photograph and its context. It goes against my convictions, to publish photos or text that other people hurt or offend. This may not be the purpose of Wikipedia.
The more complex and complicated a thing is, the easier the solution. The solution is: Delete.--Snap-x64 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- A number of postings on this page have been made by someone who has used different IP address so as to appear to be different users. There is no suggestion it is you but it is happening and it is considered disruption.
- A deletion request is not about the number of people who speak on it - it is simply about legality which the closing admin will take a decision on.
- You say it goes against my convictions, to publish photos but it is you who granted permission for exactly that. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- oh, come on: "It goes against my convictions, to publish photos or text that other people hurt or offend" - no need for more trouble. --JD {æ} 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing hurtful or offensive about this photo. It's a good photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- yes, we all know. but we all know, too, that this whole case is not about this particular question. read above. --JD {æ} 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, JD, it's not just about the photo. It's about the context.
- 1: I work professionally in advertising. You can believe me that I know how you can achieve with pictures and a context a specific effect. You can convert lies into truths. If you show a true picture and tell a lie, everyone will believe the lie, because the picture (visual truth) is more convincing than the words (verbal truth).
- 2: Whether and why a person is injured or offended is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the person is injured or offended. For whatever reason. It may be that we all like a good photo, but the person in the photograph may be offended by it. Is it really so important and a good feeling to show this photo to continue if the person feels hurt by it?
- Who does it help? Who benefits? ... Thank you for your attention.--Snap-x64 (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you are a professional photographer then next time you upload photographs of other people on a project like commons you should actually read the license text that is presented to you, and, if in doubt, refrain from publishing the foto on that platform. The license clearly says it all. As a pro it can be expected that you read and understand contracts. You could get into BIG trouble if the people on the photograph are not, as in this case, people of public interest because they may well sue you for the publication. --Isjc99 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Isjc99 If you can read, please read carefully! I'm not claiming to be a professional photographer! I work as a concept developer and copywriter. Photography is a hobby. Ok? And please read carefully what I wrote about rights, rules and ethics. My professionalism and my adulthood are the base of my responsibility and of my respect for other people. This time and every "next time". The big trouble here make some diligent Wp-authors, if they spread false information about individuals. As an interested and intelligent user you can read and understand everything about this story, or not? --Snap-x64 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you are a professional photographer then next time you upload photographs of other people on a project like commons you should actually read the license text that is presented to you, and, if in doubt, refrain from publishing the foto on that platform. The license clearly says it all. As a pro it can be expected that you read and understand contracts. You could get into BIG trouble if the people on the photograph are not, as in this case, people of public interest because they may well sue you for the publication. --Isjc99 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- yes, we all know. but we all know, too, that this whole case is not about this particular question. read above. --JD {æ} 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing hurtful or offensive about this photo. It's a good photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- oh, come on: "It goes against my convictions, to publish photos or text that other people hurt or offend" - no need for more trouble. --JD {æ} 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete there is no reason to MUST keep this image ! but there is a reason to keep author and photographer as producer and musicians as supplier of quality materials for wikipedia. please attend to the relation of this. the first image of ingo york was deleted by the same reasons - without any discussion [2]. --Blueser2805 (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Citation: 'I work professionally in advertising.' Ok, so no professional photographer but still somebody from whom it can be expected that he reads the conditions that he is accepting. You uploaded accepting CC-BY-SA, so you even accepted that other people might earn money with this picture if they cite the original author. After accepting these rules, you can write a lot but you gave the picture as a present to the public. This pic may now be used for anything and you have no control over the usage, even if you continue arguing here. And this would still be true even if commons deleted the pic, if somebody has copied it in meantime. For what you want to achieve, it is simply too late. --Isjc99 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- @user Isjc99: It is very entertaining to get from you explaining the rights and rules. Sorry, there is nothing to change my conviction. Btw.: If you are so well versed in the rights and rules, you can show me where it is written that my photo may be used to hurt people. The context of my photo is a "falsche Tatsachenbehauptung", published by Wp. You probably know what that means legally.--Snap-x64 (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Citation: 'I work professionally in advertising.' Ok, so no professional photographer but still somebody from whom it can be expected that he reads the conditions that he is accepting. You uploaded accepting CC-BY-SA, so you even accepted that other people might earn money with this picture if they cite the original author. After accepting these rules, you can write a lot but you gave the picture as a present to the public. This pic may now be used for anything and you have no control over the usage, even if you continue arguing here. And this would still be true even if commons deleted the pic, if somebody has copied it in meantime. For what you want to achieve, it is simply too late. --Isjc99 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still waiting for an explanation to understand how this pic does *hurt* and *offend* somebody (i.e. Ingo York). Does it hurt on Wikimedia Commons only? Or maybe, on fotocommunity.com, too? Or on fabrik-ev.de? Or on flickr (well, that really hurts, scnr). Not to talk about YouTube (one of my '83 favs, btw, & after 28 years it still rocks) --Amga (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really so difficult to understand the relationship between image and text? Everything described above. Read!--Snap-x64 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Do you think a person needs to explain to you (!) why she feels hurt by a wrong text? Who are you to believe that? --Snap-x64 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- just to clarify(, again): there is no link whatsoever between picture and text here on wikimedia commons. even if the file gets deleted on here, it would be more than just possible that someone else uploads it again here as you released it under a free CC license. --JD {æ} 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- @JD ... If there is no longer text about the person, no one needs the image. Delete the text and the picture - will be peace. We all know that it's about to delete the wrong information.--Snap-x64 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- sorry, you're wrong regarding this matter. image and text must be seen autonomous. you did a nice shot with your cam because you (and most probably also others) are interested in this "person der zeitgeschichte". it just won't change when deleting anything here or in wikipedia. as well you didn't do the shot because there was a "longer text" of this person you wanted to illustrate.
- any alleged "wrong information" would have been deleted or corrected rightaway if it had been communicated in a comprehensible way. the only problem i know of is the naming issue; i don't want to discuss this once again from the start (it would be at the wrong location anyway). all information on wikipedia is only reproduction of already published information, the different sources are given; there is no original research done by wikipedia editors in this particular article about a person in any way that i know of. --JD {æ} 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- @JD: It is not only the name, as far as I know. With "no longer" I did not mean the length of the text. I mean "not a longer time from now."--Snap-x64 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- @JD ... If there is no longer text about the person, no one needs the image. Delete the text and the picture - will be peace. We all know that it's about to delete the wrong information.--Snap-x64 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- just to clarify(, again): there is no link whatsoever between picture and text here on wikimedia commons. even if the file gets deleted on here, it would be more than just possible that someone else uploads it again here as you released it under a free CC license. --JD {æ} 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really so difficult to understand the relationship between image and text? Everything described above. Read!--Snap-x64 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Do you think a person needs to explain to you (!) why she feels hurt by a wrong text? Who are you to believe that? --Snap-x64 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still waiting for an explanation to understand how this pic does *hurt* and *offend* somebody (i.e. Ingo York). Does it hurt on Wikimedia Commons only? Or maybe, on fotocommunity.com, too? Or on fabrik-ev.de? Or on flickr (well, that really hurts, scnr). Not to talk about YouTube (one of my '83 favs, btw, & after 28 years it still rocks) --Amga (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Thorsten Murr (Snap-x64) is an author and photographer of the project www.deutsche-mugge.de, a project with volunteers who write like wikipedians without pay for the worldwide community. Wikipedia gets many information from and takes many links to this projekt [3]. www.deutsche-mugge.de is an important source for authors who are writing articles about german popular music. I think, this is enough reason to end the discussion about this ONE image and delete it. --Blueser2805 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Only to make this clear: The Argument above, that "deutsche-mugge.de" is important to German Wikipedia ist not true. --Engeltr (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment That's right, Wikipedia is the only true source of truth. --Snap-x64 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment wikipedia has many problems and many areas who need development. one problem is the bad quality of many photographs. cooperation with more professional or semiprofessional outside-communities - there are same interests and aims to produce information for a free access - is one way to make this better. every community, every single user who supports this idea should be welcome on wikipedia ! --Blueser2805 (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion given Denniss (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't figure out how to edit this file; uploaded similarly named "Msdna synthesis.png" and don't want confusion. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Goodfaith req by upl 1 day after upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Files by Rexternas.nefaac
[edit]Rexternas.nefaac (talk · contribs)
- File:Sónia Silva.png
- File:Coordenad...jpg
- File:Pestana.png
- File:Rita Silveira.png
- File:Patrícia Pessoa.png
- File:Mariana Fróis.png
- File:Maria Inês Correia.png
- File:Margarida Dourado.png
- File:João Abrantes.png
- File:Eliana Mota.png
- File:Filipe Pires.png
- File:Bruno Agria.png
- File:Direcção NEFAAC 2009.jpg
All files have questionable permision, and the educational content is not given. --GeorgHH • talk 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Cartoons uploaded by User:Jkktay
[edit]- File:WIKI Anima title page.gif
- File:WIKI Anima-Leo.jpg
- File:WIKI Anima sample panels.gif
- File:WIKI Anima-ET.jpg
- File:WIKI Anima-robots.jpg
- File:WIKI Dog-Land title.gif
- File:WIKI dog-land sample 1.gif
- File:WIKI dog-land sample 2.gif
- File:WIKI dog-land sample 3.gif
All files might be copied from Anima: Age of the Robots or Seven Years in Dog-Land. --丁 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Anime/manga/comics. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Everything else uploaded by this uploader has turned out to be copyvios so these images might also be copyvios. No EXIF.
Stefan4 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
press photos from a 14-year old, several files from panoramio (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/35422070, http://www.panoramio.com/photo/9756620), screen captures, political campaign photos. He also runs his own satellite (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista_satelital_de_Chanmagua.jpg). Some local photos of low quality might be own work.
- File:Otto Pérez, Roxana Baldetti & Álvaro Colom.jpg
- File:Otto Pérez & Roxana Baldetti.jpg
- File:Otto Pérez Molina Guatemala y la prensa.jpg
- File:Otto Pérez firma de la paz.jpg
- File:Otto-Perez-Molina-Ejercito-Quiche.jpg
- File:Ricardo Arjona Guatemala.jpg
- File:Fabiola miryam gran desafio.jpg
- File:Fabiola Rodas.jpg
- File:Manuel-Baldizon.jpg
- File:Juan Pablo Espino.jpg
- File:Juan Pablo junto a Rafael Espada.jpg
- File:Moncho Peralta Alcalde.jpg
- File:Julio Lima alcalde.jpg
- File:Flag of Esquipulas.jpg
- File:Ramón Peralta y Julio alcaldes de Esquipulas.jpg
- File:Ramón Peralta.jpg
- File:Coat of arms of Esquipulas.gif
- File:Vista satelital de Chanmagua.jpg
- File:América Central.jpg
- File:Mapa político de Centroamerica.png
- File:Boris España.jpg
- File:Otto perez molina.jpg
- File:Roxana Baldetti y Otto Pérez Molina.jpg
- File:Roxana Baldetti Guatemala.jpg
- File:Coat of arms of Guatemala.svg.jpg
- File:Flag of Esquipulas.svg.jpg
- File:Club Premiere.png
- File:Río atulapa Chatún.jpg
- File:Los Arcos.png
- File:Reserva biosfera el guisayote.jpg
- File:Reserva de la Biosfera Trifino.jpg
- File:Design center.jpg
- File:Atrium guatemala.jpg
- File:Dubai center guatemalacity.jpg
- File:Vista panomarica de esquipulas.jpg
- File:Ciudad-esquipulas.jpg
- File:Seño Mily.jpg
- File:Milagro Acevedo Duarte.jpg
- File:Carlos Lapola.jpg
- File:Chatún Esquipulas.jpg
- File:Cueva minas esquipulas.jpg
- File:Vista de la Piedra de los Compadres.jpg
- File:Piedra de los Compadres.jpg
- File:Basílica de Esquipulas.jpg
- File:Karol Leiva Miss Esquipulas.jpg
- File:Grand Tikal Futura.jpg
- File:Elder omar.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I'm amazed this user is tolerated-Kiwipat (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - is nobody keeping an eye on new uploads anymore? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haru_Master (talk · contribs)
[edit]- old images without source and "own" claim
- paintings without source (old?)
- politicians from unfree official source with wrong "own" claim (e.g. http://www.casapres.go.cr/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&Itemid=57)
- images from panoramio, e.g. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/33504991
- images from tourism and other websites, e.g. http://www.toursparadise.com/arenal-volcano-and-tabacon-hot-spring, http://www.tvkinc.com/noticia/2011/04/12/246051-productores-cafe-costa-rica-piden-exclusion-grano-tlc-peru.html
- widely used stockphotos, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frutas_de_Costa_Rica.jpg
- File:Bandera Desamparados.png
- File:Aniceto Esquivel Sáenz JPG.jpg
- File:Ferreteria Macaya.jpg
- File:Soldados Marchando.jpg
- File:Aguas Termales de Tabacón.jpg
- File:Volcán Irazú.jpg
- File:Valle de Orosi.jpg
- File:Volcan Turrialba.jpg
- File:Abolicion del Ejército de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Fundación de la Segunda República.jpg
- File:Recibimiento a José Figuerez.jpg
- File:Cuartel Militar de cartago.jpg
- File:Avenida Central 1928.jpg
- File:Black Beans and Rice.jpeg
- File:Gallo pinto.jpg
- File:Folklore-costa-rica.jpg
- File:Shirley-alvarez y ricardo granados.jpg
- File:Danza en costa rica1.jpg
- File:Federico Tinoco.jpg
- File:Descubrimiento america.jpg
- File:Cristobal colon.jpg
- File:Colonizacion-de-los-indigenas.jpg
- File:Soleadas-mananas-de-san-jose.jpg
- File:Cafetalero.jpg
- File:Agricultor.jpg
- File:Boyero.jpg
- File:Frutas de Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Turistas en Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Estudiantes Costarricenses.jpg
- File:Universidad Earth.jpg
- File:Colegio-San-Luis-Gonzaga.jpg
- File:Luis Antonio Sobrado González.jpg
- File:Luis Paulino Mora Mora.jpeg
- File:Juan Carlos Mendoza.png
- File:Laura Chinchilla Miranda.jpg
- File:Escudo de Puntarenas.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete These pictures cannot all be 'own work' taken by the uploader as the nominator says. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - is nobody keeping an eye on new uploads anymore? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haru Master (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Haru Master (serial copyright violator) / logs / previous mass DR etc. Included are 9 music files (like official anthens File:Himno Nacional de Costa Rica.ogg + File:Himno Municipal Palmares.ogg + etc + folcloric music from Costa Rica + other stuff), obviously not own work.
- File:Concierto Palmares.jpg
- File:Himno Municipal Palmares.ogg
- File:Himno Municipal de San José.ogg
- File:Himno Municipal de Desamparados.ogg
- File:Musica Indigena.ogg
- File:Tacumas & Anansi's Party.ogg
- File:Canto a Puntarenas.ogg
- File:La Botijuela.ogg
- File:Caballito Nicoyano.ogg
- File:Himno Nacional de Costa Rica.ogg
- File:Rio Sierpe.jpg
- File:ISLA VIOLINES.jpg
- File:SERRANÍA.jpg
- File:PALMAR NORTE.jpg
- File:AMANECER.jpg
- File:CIUDAD CORTÉS.jpg
- File:BALLENAS.jpg
- File:601489 368259593257286 398587501 nprot.jpg
- File:Luis Antonio Sobrado González.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
widely used collage containing deleted images -- Common Good (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. w:WP:SOFIXIT, as I've done. (The old versions can be deleted.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Thanks to User:King of Hearts -- Common Good (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Contains GFDL-only images. The GFDL is not compatible with cc-by-sa. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, GFDL-only is a valid license for images (as opposed to text) on Wikimedia projects. Secondly, it is fine for them to coexist in the same image because the image is considered a "collective work" rather than a "derivative work." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the license of the collective work? It cannot be GFDL only, it cannot be cc-by-sa only, and it cannot be both. That's why they're incompatible; you cannot create a work with elements from both licenses. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe, but i'm no expert, that its the same as if you would have a gallery page containing these images. At the end they'd be shown together although they have an incompatible licences. My opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed, but it seems that WM community opinion is that you can do such a thing. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the license of the collective work? It cannot be GFDL only, it cannot be cc-by-sa only, and it cannot be both. That's why they're incompatible; you cannot create a work with elements from both licenses. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW of unfree image uk:Файл:Ul'janchenko.jpg.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
no use // no content McZusatz (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy - No usefull content at all. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Avi (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Image is very less likely to be uploader's own work. Seems like a copyright violation of this page. Moreover, as the person expired in August 1968, it could not have been taken in October 1968. Not yet in public domain as per Indian Copyright Laws. Lovysinghal (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Almost certainlt a copyright vio; uploading information apparently false Avi (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The uploader created a gallery page with the following message:
- "Can someone delete my file/book Ginkgo biloba • Nature's Miracle, Book 1 (Vol 1-2) - by B. M. Begovic Bego.pdf?
- I'm received permission to sell the DVD in high resolution and in other formats.
- Thank you in advance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginkgob (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep We have a CC-BY-SA license on the file, which is, of course, irrevocable. I am very much against allowing people to advertise their wares on Commons and then remove them when they find a paying client for them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - is not this book full of non-free stuff by third parties? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Irrevocable license by copyright author given. Irrevocable means it cannot be taken back. Avi (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Vector version is available Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I KNOW that only this reason won't do as deletion of superseded images is stopped but hear me out-
- Deletion of superseded images is stopped because it breaks licenses mainly by-sa
- Although this image is by-sa, it's also PD-geometry
- As it's PD-geometry, by-sa dosen't apply and hence it can be deleted
Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I do not like User:Gauravjuvekar (look at that user page!) claiming credit for the pleasing graphic created by Brews ohare. His SVG is just a stupid automated tracing, about fifty times more code than an intelligent human would have needed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Er no. That is not an auto-trace. I drew(not-autotraced) the entire image in inkscape in October 2011. I was quite new to inkscape(vector graphics in general) and didn't know that something like autotrace existed(I am not exaggerating). I have used it only on two files since I knew about it. I recently nominated it for QI where I was asked to centre all the markings and it got promoted. I didn't know that you could import rasters in inkscape back then so I created the file by opening the Png version in GIMP, measuring the pixels in GIMP and using them to set guides in inkscape and draw the vector. Just open the source code, if it was autotraced then lines wouldn't be lines(they would have more than two nodes which is not straight).--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: No substantive reason for removing this image is given. It would seem that Gauravjuvekar simply wishes to limit the choice of contributors to his/her version. Although the differences between the images is minor, I prefer mine.
- I drafted this image and spent some time doing it. I have no idea why it should be singled out for dumping. Deleting my work provides a disincentive for me to continue drafting images for WP, or correcting them (as has happened), and I have contributed many. Brews ohare (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's sad, SVG is the much better format for Wikipedia, but anyway you made a good job in drawing. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 08:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No good reason to delete (still in scope, etc.) Avi (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, the newspaper is not in the PD Antemister (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- photo of the newspaper (headlines): DoD photo by: Tech. Sgt. Hans H. Deffner (PD US GOV), not a newspaper scan or copy.
Look at File:The Economist Cover Issue 5th March.JPG or en:File:Acropolis_Now_(Economist_cover,_May_1_2010).jpg --wikifreund (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- minor edits like image display removal, linkfix done by me --Denniss (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Despite being taken by a US military person, the actual newspaper remains under the copyright of Arab News, and thus is not eligible for hosting on the commons. The link brought regarding the economist is from a file hosted on EnWikiP, which allows fair use. If the German Wikipedia allows fair use, then a copy of this image should be hosted there, but it must be removed from the Commons. Avi (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Stolen non free image. Ileana n (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Advertising, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This image was used in fr:7yat L'Ghetto which was deleted for autopromotion and missing notoriety. The image does not look very useful for other purposes, so I think maybe it is not in Commons Scope. /Ö 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Ö 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Badseed talk 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder. Caption on the article the image illustrates says this is the subject in 1978. Image of a living person. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm nominating this file for deletion because it the reason for it's existence is no longer relevant and it actually has a small defect. The reason it was created was because it would be "optimized" and use valid SVG syntax. However in doing so (I guess by accident) the outer blue circle became wider. The difference is hard to see when put next to each other, but I recommend opening the following three links in tabs and switching between the "Original SVG" and "optimized version". You'll see that the latter has a different (distorted) width compared to the original. Also, when looking at the file sizes (Original: 692 B, "optimized": 962 B), it appears to be bigger.
To avoid any confusion between these logos we should remove this, larger file-size, duplicate because it contains a slight visual defect. –Krinkletalk 14:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted I'd be grateful if you'd stop deleting files which are heavily used, including on main page of pl.wiki. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg has recently been updated to match the colors of File:Chinese Roundel 1916-1920.svg. This file (File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928-2.svg) also claims to have the correct colors. We should figure out which has the right one, and apply that to File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg and delete this file, fixing usage and replacing with a redirect. –Krinkletalk 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good luck -- there have been extensive debates on Commons about which blue is the real Chinese Republic blue in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Commons does not judge which flag is "correct" or "incorrect". If there are concerns about the colours, discuss them at the article talk page and use the one that suits the local consensus. You don't have to use this file simply because it's here Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JordanBlocher (talk · contribs)
[edit]See en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 7#File:Karel2.png: I can't find any proof that this is free software. CC-BY-SA is an unusual software licence, so the licence is probably wrong.
- File:High-School Physics.png
- File:Sympy.png
- File:Plasm.png
- File:Numerical Methods.png
- File:WebGL.png
- File:Circular Obstacle.png
- File:Fractals.png
- File:CNC Programming.png
- File:NCLab logo.png
- File:NCLab.png
Stefan4 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes hello! What can I do for these files to not be deleted? I have express permission to use them, they are meant to be distributed. JordanBlocher (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2012
- When I previously tried looking at the web site, it was only available in Czech (and clicking on any of the flags didn't help: it remained in Czech), so the page was unreadable for me and it was thus impossible to find any terms of use. Now I see that the page has changed so that it is available in English, and so it is possible to find and read the terms of use. The text "Image policy: Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned." sounds enough to me. The currently listed licence is wrong, of course. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Stefan, the language problem was due to a temporary Nginx misconfiguration, sorry for this. Could you suggest a better license? Thanks a lot, I appreciate you hard work. 24.205.99.144 04:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe this license should now apply. {{attribution|NCLab}} JordanBlocher (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please open Terms of Use, there is the following Image Policy: "Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubflaska (talk • contribs) 2012-02-11T18:48:47 (UTC)
Hello! After speaking with NCLab.com, they have added an explicit cc-by-sa-3.0 license for these images on the NCLab.com website, under Terms of Use. The licenses for the images have been changed to reflect. JordanBlocher (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- One small question, a very nice wiki user, CrazyComputers, helped the Karel image by cropping off the part that displays the browser. He informed me that this is more in agreement with wiki standards. Should I make this change to all of the above images? JordanBlocher (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep now clearly CC-BY-SA. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for checking these images, Mr. Kuiper. As it is now 7 days after the deletion request opened, can I expect that the deletion tags will be removed? Is there anything else I must do to ensure that they are not deleted today? JordanBlocher (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I have been informed on my user page that deletion requests can take some time to be resolved, thank you Mr. Saibo. I will keep checking to make sure I remain part of the discussion. JordanBlocher (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I also confirmed with a second ticket that was sent in and research on the website. SarahStierch (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Case now settled by website terms of use & OTRS ticket. Badseed talk 17:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that the author of this photograph is really anonymous? The source statement is quite weak; a deeplink that could give more clearance would be appreciated 80.187.110.217 09:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Where is the evidence that the author of this photograph is not anonymous? Authors of war photographs of WW I (special of countries whose left an war) in reality are not to find out. It seems to be, that 80.187.110.217 has no idea what's going on in real life. Steinbeisser (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could be a museum pic or something like this so it's possible that there was written down that it is anonymous.--Sanandros (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- unfortunately, you're missing the point. evidence has to be provided that the work is anonymous, not the other way around, and you will find support for that in every comprehensive commentary on german copyright law (see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Schachtanlage_Conow_um_1920.jpg&diff=55538568&oldid=55428312). by the way, what's going on in real life is that such images are simply not used due to the uncertainities associated with publishing them. —Pill (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately - if nobody knows who the photgrapher is - it's anonymus. In this case - nobody knwos who, where or when the photo was made - so it's anonymus.
Als Anonymes Werk bezeichnet man im Urheberrecht ein Werk ohne Urheberbezeichnung, also ein Werk, das nicht namentlich gekennzeichnet ist.
Da man bei anonymen Werken den Urheber nicht kennt oder kennen soll, knüpfen Vorschriften, die über die Dauer des urheberrechtlichen Schutzes entscheiden, üblicherweise nicht an das Todesdatum des Urhebers an, sondern an den Zeitpunkt der Erstveröffentlichung.
Also, was willst Du eigentlich? -- Steinbeisser (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- you're misunderstanding the legal provision. if i buy a box at a garage sale and later find a picture in it that doesn't contain the name of the photographer, i cannot simply claim that this is an anonymous work. of course i could start claiming things ("nobody knwos who, where or when the photo was made"), but that doens't change a thing legally. that's why one needs to be cautious with respect to such images and why turning around the question ("Where is the evidence that the author of this photograph is not anonymous") is an inadequate way of dealing with these issues. —Pill (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a printed work, from a state archive, not from a garage sale. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any valid evidence for your speculation? --High Contrast (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The halftone raster caused aliasing in the scan. Printed work. Uploader says it is from the Austrian archives, and is see no reason for doubting that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And that's all? --High Contrast (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The halftone raster caused aliasing in the scan. Printed work. Uploader says it is from the Austrian archives, and is see no reason for doubting that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any valid evidence for your speculation? --High Contrast (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
What is a garage sale? -- Steinbeisser (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Just because we do not know who the creator is does not make it an anonymous work. For "anonymous" to apply, the creator must have deliberately not identified himself. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
SVG file has incompatibilities and does not render properly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- It works in Opera at least. Add to Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug and Keep -- Liliana-60 (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The black squares are probably due to Inkscape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What tool should I be using instead of Inscape? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The black squares are probably due to Inkscape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not delete. I'm using Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug to collect a slew of bugs for the rsvg maintainers. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Info it's only the old and well-known text-flow bug, s. Help:SVG#Fonts. Simple to fix. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It may be simple to fix, but it has been six months and doesn't render in Firefox either. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Sebastian Gaiser claims copyright for this photo A.J. (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I guess Mr. Gaiser is owner of artwork depicted on the photo. Buying a painting does not entitle automatically to copyright, but whoever own it, its still valid (painter died in 1966). Permission "only for Wikipedia" is not enough. One should also consider Commons:De minimis here. A.J. (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-Poland}} is for photos; not clear to me what Polish law says for paintings in photos; probably best to Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest Delete this one, but keep cropped version File:Henryk Berlewi 1966.png as application of Commons:De minimis. A.J. (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: several copyrights here, none clear . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
See COM:TOO#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not see how this could be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is more complex than the copyrighted Edge logo... --Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- In what way? The font is ordinary, and even the UK cannot copyright circles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This one has an ordinary font combined with ordinary circles and some colour whereas the copyrighted Edge logo only has an ordinary font. Although it only has one of the three elements of this logo, the Edge one is copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense; the point is that en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg has rather special "E"'s. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And this one has three rather special circles: they have a black border and are filled in with red colour and contain white letters. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is special about filled circles with a black outline? That its area is pi r^2 ? What do you think the consequences of such a copyright would be? That they could sue anyone for infringement who drew a maroon circle with a white letter in it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is so special with the shape of the "E" letters in the Edge logo? That the area of the middle line is (where is the smallest internal angle)? You might be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom which has several similar logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is special about filled circles with a black outline? That its area is pi r^2 ? What do you think the consequences of such a copyright would be? That they could sue anyone for infringement who drew a maroon circle with a white letter in it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And this one has three rather special circles: they have a black border and are filled in with red colour and contain white letters. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense; the point is that en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg has rather special "E"'s. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This one has an ordinary font combined with ordinary circles and some colour whereas the copyrighted Edge logo only has an ordinary font. Although it only has one of the three elements of this logo, the Edge one is copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- In what way? The font is ordinary, and even the UK cannot copyright circles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is more complex than the copyrighted Edge logo... --Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: PD text logo . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See COM:TOO#UK. Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- If the same logo was used in 1908, it might be PD-old. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- They used different logos, see here; I would estimate that this one is from around 1960. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to this site it seems this logo was introduced in 1945. —Bruce1eetalk 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The earliest version with some slanted characters that I can find here is from April 1954. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to this site it seems this logo was introduced in 1945. —Bruce1eetalk 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- They used different logos, see here; I would estimate that this one is from around 1960. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the same logo was used in 1908, it might be PD-old. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See COM:TOO#UK. The way the "e" and the "r" are connected and the way the "g" have a gap look about as creative as the decoration of the "E" in the Edge logo, which was ruled as copyrightable. Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - people write connecting lines all the time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- And people draw diagonal lines on the letter "E" all of the time and still get copyright protection. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - logo seems sufficiently creative to be copyrightable. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - PD-textlogo applies, but I doubt if the company is notable, so rather delete for scope reasons than for copyright reasons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior_of_the_Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception
[edit]OTRS ticket# 2012020710010655 Curator of Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception requests the deletion of all photos of the museum's interior since none of the artists have granted permission to use their artwork (see Commons:FOP#United_States)
- File:Apse 360.JPG
- File:Baldachino Altar.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception 3.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 1.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 10.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 11.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 12.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 13.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 14.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 15.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 16.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 17.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 18.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 19.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 2.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 20.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 21.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 26.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 27.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 28.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 29.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 3.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 30.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 31.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 32.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 33.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 34.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 35.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 36.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 37.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 38.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 39.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 4.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 40.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 41.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 42 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 42.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 43.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 44 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 44.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 45.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 46.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 47.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 48 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 48.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 49.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 5.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 50 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 50.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 51.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 52.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 53.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 54 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 54.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 55.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 56.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 57.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 58 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 58.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 59.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 6.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 60 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 60.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 61.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 62.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 63 stitched.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 63.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 64.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 65.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 66.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 7.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 8.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 9.JPG
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception.jpg
- File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception2 DC.jpg
- File:Basilica of the National Shrine - interior.jpg
- File:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception August 2002 01.jpg
- File:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception August 2002 03.jpg
- File:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception August 2002 04.jpg
- File:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception August 2002 05.jpg
- File:Bishop'sVestingAltar.JPG
- File:BlessedSacramentChapel.JPG
- File:CFPBasilica.jpeg
- File:Founder's Chapel.JPG
- File:Our Lady of La Vang.jpg
- File:Shrine interior 1.JPG
- File:Universal Call to holiness.JPG
- File:WashDC-basilica-nat-shrine-interior.jpg
MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep most - Delete images of certain art objects that can be shown to be copyrighted, like photos in Category:Our Lady of La Vang, Washington DC - the statue was dedicated 2006. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep most, and likewise remove images just of artworks, like File:Universal Call to holiness.JPG.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep some, remove any pictures of specific items, statues, etc. Also remove high-res panoramas and high-res pictures of interior, for same reason. Leave low res pictures (i.e. File:WashDC-basilica-nat-shrine-interior.jpg) on general interior for informational reasons. 66.16.8.90 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Most of this is from before 1978, and I doubt that it has any copyright marks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually many of the items displayed include things that are newer then 1978. Examples include File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception 3.jpg, File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 10.JPG and File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 46.JPG and those are just after doing quick searches. One of the Domes in the file ending in 3 was completed within the last 5 years. The chapel in file ending in 10 was completed within the last year and the item displayed in 46 is less then 2 years old.66.16.8.90 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I had already mentioned the La Vang chapel as a recent work. But #46 is just a copy of File:Gnadenbild, Gnadenkapelle Altötting.jpeg - no originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually many of the items displayed include things that are newer then 1978. Examples include File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception 3.jpg, File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 10.JPG and File:Basilica National Shrine Immaculate Conception DC 46.JPG and those are just after doing quick searches. One of the Domes in the file ending in 3 was completed within the last 5 years. The chapel in file ending in 10 was completed within the last year and the item displayed in 46 is less then 2 years old.66.16.8.90 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Most of this is from before 1978, and I doubt that it has any copyright marks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep interior views of the architecture which was completed in 1961 and which thereby precedes the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 and Delete images of still(!) copyrighted artwork that do not fall under de minimis. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keepkeep all the photos, all of them, in fact, even those in particular, are very important.--Pufui Pc Pifpef I (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: about half. I tried to delete only those that clearly showed works of art and kept general views. Others would have made dsifferent decisions on some, but it has been six months -- time to close it out. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
authorization has obviously not been given by the copyright holder, see other non-authorized uploads of the "author" 91.12.196.250 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
no permission. Photographer and copyright holder unknown (see User_talk:Saibo#File:MC Oran (saison 1988 - 1989).jpg - also I wrote some emails with Faycal). {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}} is not possible (picture made after 1987). Saibo (Δ) 23:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I taked the picture from Mouloudia.com official website, I'm too member of the site. Maybe because the picture is old (1988), hope that it can be accepted. Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted. INeverCry 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)