Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Copyright violation from: http://www.njpw.co.jp/match/detail_result_game2.php?e=513&c=3828 TheFBH (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio Tabercil (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I've choose the wrong file. Gregorjakac (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request short after upload. Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyright violation, real author is Alik Keplicz/AP Photo. See/compare [1], [2], [3] Atlasowa (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: License washing Masur (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as required by COM:SCOPE. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete This upload is just stupid photos found on the Internet, and the reason was to pad category:donkey punch, in order to make it more legitimate because of his opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif. Cirt also added File:Donkey punch bumper sticker.jpg to the category, and it is quite probable that the bumper sticker is an inappropriate category member. Cirt also added File:Donkey Punch by uberculture.jpg, File:Donkey punch by TheChanel.jpg, File:Donkey punch at pool by TheChanel.jpg, File:Donkey punch art by Perry Marco.jpg and File:Donkey punch 2.jpg to the category, when none of them have any relation to Cirt's own stated objective for the category being "Artwork related to or inspired by the w:Donkey punch phenomenon." John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I see no back of any necks in this photo. In what way does this represent a donkey punch? I don’t get it. Is the idea that the man on the left is crying out from having just received one? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, free-license picture, Creative Commons Attribution. Titled as donkey punch by the artist, matter of artistic license. -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)- Delete, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - not educational in any way, shape or form, unless you find educational value in a bad example. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, strike my prior comment for keep, changed to delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader for deletion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the sticker, hardly in scope anyway. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, picture of a fist with some block letters, doesn't meet Threshold of originality#United States. Part of a compilation of freedom of expression of various artists per their creative artistic license. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the link you gave rather shows that a picture of a fist is above the threshold of originality in the U.S. All the examples are just about text, very simple shapes or variations on very old artwork. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, strike my prior comment for keep, changed to delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader for deletion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
drawing, fan art of a character. Ileana n (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg, not free photo TaraO (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC) same thing for File:Tim Brent.jpg, File:Tomas Kubalik.jpg and File:Dale Weise.jpg
Deleted: by Ludo29 Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright holder or not, the spam article written for this guy is out of scope of Wikipedia and so is this file. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Also recommend that uploader and sock(s) (see history) be blocked for crosswiki disruption. --KinuP (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Σ (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo is not in the public domain - the applied license tag doesn't fit for this one 80.187.106.96 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Rastrojo Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this image yesterday (02/11/2012). Upon further research, I am uncertain if the licensing information I used was correct and am uncertain that this image meets fair use copyright standards. I therefore request that this image be removed as soon as possible until I can verify that it may be freely used. Scottwindcrest (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Masturbation.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW of http://ti-mi.tripod.com/gangbang/index.album/ready-to-take-off-my-fuckdress?i=5&s= Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, significantly different, artistic work by admin Rama (talk · contribs). Nicely done, -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read up on copyright at Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs. And for example Shephard Fairey's Obama poster case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The result of Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible_copyright_violation was that the image was retained. Admin Rama (talk · contribs) stated there was inspiration from multiple images and then subsequently the artwork was drawn freehand. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. No decision was made at the VP, and people seem to have assumed that the underlying photo uploaded by "Ti mi (talk · contribs)" was a free for all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- That photo was originally uploaded under a free use license, the GFDL. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which Rama did not respect. The problem of course is that anybody could call himself "Tie me" and upload some images that he found on a porn site. There is not a shred of evidence that the photo was GFDL. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- That photo was originally uploaded under a free use license, the GFDL. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. No decision was made at the VP, and people seem to have assumed that the underlying photo uploaded by "Ti mi (talk · contribs)" was a free for all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The result of Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible_copyright_violation was that the image was retained. Admin Rama (talk · contribs) stated there was inspiration from multiple images and then subsequently the artwork was drawn freehand. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read up on copyright at Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs. And for example Shephard Fairey's Obama poster case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly derivative. --JN466 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you can expand your comment and explain why you think it's derivative. This look like those "clearly notable", "obviously not notable" arguments on wikipedia.--В и к и в и н др е ц и 12:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative; no satisfactory evidence that the original photo was freely licensed. Even if it was not a copyvio, I am struggling to think of an educational use for this drawing that would not be better served by a different drawing or image on commons. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What different drawing or image on Commons would you suggest there is? -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would depend on what you were using it to illustrate - but I can't think of anything that would not better be illustrated by something else. However, looking at the drawing, I now see that it's in use on the vietnamese wikipedia - which means that, no matter how I feel about it, it is in scope. But, keeping my delete vote anyway, as I still feel it's derivative. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- What different drawing or image on Commons would you suggest there is? -- Cirt (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am fair more concerned now that I read the August 2009 discussion which Cirt mentions at the top. Very obviously a derivative work, and the original has not been credited or mentioned on the image page. By their own omission, Rama used that image as a basis. Irrespective of whether it was GFDL or otherwise copyrighted, Rama should have attributed the original or OTRS'd a permission to create a derivate work without attribution. Rama's attention was called to this one, but nothing was done. Rama licensed this as w:CeCILL (effectively the w:GPL) and Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr, neither of which are compatible with the GFDL. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. This appears comparable to the w:Barack Obama "Hope" poster controversy. The Stanford University Fair Use Center supported the defense in that case as a "Fair Use", but Commons doesn't seem to want Fair Use. I truly wish we did not have laws saying that what you draw on paper can be somebody else's "property". Wnt (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Here on Commons, we are only concerned with two main things; whether an image has educational purpose and whether it is freely licenced inline with copyright laws. As the image/s are in use across numerous projects, they are clearly in scope, however, the underlying works which were used to derive these works were deleted from Commons as potential copyright violations. As some have mentioned here, an example of drawings based on photos is the Obama "Hope" poster. Whilst in the Obama Hope case, fair use could be argued, Commons does not allow "fair use" materials. Only materials which are freely licenced may be hosted here, and as there is ample evidence that the original photographic source uploaded to Commons was a copyright violation, there is no question that this is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, and hence it is a copyright violation. My rationale for deletion (and closing this early) is based upon only these issues of copyright. russavia (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, advertisement. January (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value is unclear. -Pete F (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The relevant OTRS ticket only covers images by the site maintainer; this is a contributed image. Therefore there is no permission to use this image. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -
I am just curious, where did you find that this is a contributed image? I did not see that at the source.--Sreejith K (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) - Delete - Needs permission from the copyright owner Mr. Roy Blythe --Sreejith K (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per my comment at the OTRS Noticeboard. Of note, I'm the OTRS agent who handled the ticket cited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, as per HJ Mitchell Captain-tucker (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Montage of what are probably copyrighted images. January (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
low quality Ilasun (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete educational value is unclear -Pete F (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
not likely to have any educational use due to bad quality. unused Japs 88 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
promotional images Japs 88 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual, poor image quality no educational value QU TalkQu 20:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, http://www.knowledgecomputers.net/team.aspx Captain-tucker (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual (despite the name!), poor image quality no educational value QU TalkQu 21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual,no educational value QU TalkQu 21:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual, poor image quality no educational value. Personal photo album. QU TalkQu 21:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual, poor image quality no educational value. Personal photo album. QU TalkQu 21:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual, no educational value. Personal photo album. QU TalkQu 21:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, unidentified individual, no educational value. Personal photo album. QU TalkQu 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Unsed image taken in a private location. No evidence of permission from owner of office or the individuals in the photograph for its publication QU TalkQu 21:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No educational value - this is a scan of someone's essay for a school course. QU TalkQu 21:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Image has been used to create 6+ copies of a biography of a living person that does not describe how the person is notable or significant. The page has been deleted and salted to prevent recreation on en Wikipedia and deleted on es Wikipedia. TParis (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, unused private picture. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete not useful without description. Disregard my vote if it will be provided. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong license. out of scope. 77.184.128.85 07:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:DCNG-levrette.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This also affects the derivatives File:Donkey punch.jpg and File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif.
Almost certainly a COM:DW, as there is no evidence that Rama can make free-hand drawings of human bodies from imagination (or from life?); there are plenty of deleted examples where he uploaded traces from photos. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- This would affect the whole "DCNG" series of illustrations. Any idea what DCNG stands for? They appear to be scans. Hopefully user:rama can explain. And more at w:User:Rama/Sexuality drawings. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep oh come ON. You are accusing one of Commons's longest-standing users, just because you want something else deleted. This is pathetic, even by your standards. You have no evidence, only innuendo. We accept self-created educational artwork all the time. We don't require that people prove they can draw. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Evidence is for example User:Rama/Personalities drawings and all the drawings that were there; many were admittedly from a single non-free photographic portrait, others were composites. But I do not need to prove that his nudes are copyright violations, Rama needs to prove that they are original work. If they derive from free photos, he can send those to OTRS, possibly with faces blurred. This needs evidence to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain how he could prove these are own work. You can't prove a negative, that they were not created using photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can even prove a positive: File:Masturbation.jpg is claimed by Rama as own work with the requirement that it be attributed to him. Yet as Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible copyright violation shows, it was derived from a photo. This shows that he cannot make such drawings from phantasy. Few artist can draw nudes that way, most need live models for a croquis sketch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain how he could prove these are own work. You can't prove a negative, that they were not created using photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Evidence is for example User:Rama/Personalities drawings and all the drawings that were there; many were admittedly from a single non-free photographic portrait, others were composites. But I do not need to prove that his nudes are copyright violations, Rama needs to prove that they are original work. If they derive from free photos, he can send those to OTRS, possibly with faces blurred. This needs evidence to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Admin Rama (talk · contribs) is indeed a skilled artist. And per Rama's comments, None of these images are traced, because doing so would be trivially a derivative work. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are other ways of copying, it is a skill taught in art classes; File:Masturbation.jpg is still very obviously a derivative work when one compares with the original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The result of Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible_copyright_violation was that the image was retained. -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I now started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbation.jpg. The point here is that Rama always declines to divulge the sources for his drawings. Only power admins can get away with that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you not just have added it here? You are forum shopping it seems to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I now started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbation.jpg. The point here is that Rama always declines to divulge the sources for his drawings. Only power admins can get away with that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The result of Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible_copyright_violation was that the image was retained. -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are other ways of copying, it is a skill taught in art classes; File:Masturbation.jpg is still very obviously a derivative work when one compares with the original. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep COM:OTRS is not required for self created images which weren't published elsewhere prior to commons. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Dudes, we are talking about a COM:DW of a putative copyright violation. If this should be now benefitial for commons, go and change our policies. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rama drew it free-hand. Not a copyright violation. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, the shown woman e.g. was his biggest milestone in free-hand drawing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- No one who is claiming this is a "derivative work" has shown what image they think it is a derivative of. It's not a derivative work. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, the shown woman e.g. was his biggest milestone in free-hand drawing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. It does not matter whether Rama drew it free-hand or traced it, or whether the use was fair or not; per COM:DW it's out of scope. --JN466 12:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's definitely within scope because it has a derivative which is in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Works derived from non-free content are out of scope; every single media file hosted on Commons must be free of third-party copyrights. --JN466 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's not SCOPE issues, that's licence issues. Scope is whether something is educationally useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the section Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain. Then please also read Commons:DW#But_Wikimedia_Commons_isn't_commercial!_And_what_about_fair_use?, notably the sentence "the project scope requires that every single picture may be used commercially via free licenses. Every image or media file must be free of third-party copyrights." --JN466 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's not SCOPE issues, that's licence issues. Scope is whether something is educationally useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Works derived from non-free content are out of scope; every single media file hosted on Commons must be free of third-party copyrights. --JN466 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's definitely within scope because it has a derivative which is in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I have asked Rama to comment on these images at his talk page, however he doesn't want to comment. As per recent DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masturbation.jpg, there is evidence of these being derivative works. As the uploader does not want to comment on the questions asked of him, I have no other choice but to apply our precautionary principle and begrudgingly delete these images. russavia (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP In Russia according to the English Wikipedia Duplicate Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dear user, did you seen this page? That duplicate on ENWP is just my experiment, destined for deletion further. Have you any objections? Alex Florstein (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yann has a really weird understanding of copyright. I am seriously thinking about opening de-RfA because of such gross violations. Artem Karimov (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Repeated RfD for the same file without new rationales. A.Savin 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France. Appears to be a French statue from 2009. Stefan4 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP at source country Cambalachero (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominating per en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 11#File:Church.gif. A user in the discussion noticed that the original source license listed on the GIF image is incorrect. This file is therefore a copyright violation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per WP discussion Cambalachero (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[4],[5],[6]--7'o'7 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The previous deletion request seems to have been closed under the reason that it was a product design with no copyright protection applicable. I am not sure if it was really an informed decision. The cited judgements there were, in my understanding, about product designs composed of text and simple shapes, not much like the one nominated here with photographs. To my eyes, the photograph located in the center of this package is an independent (non de-minimis) artwork, making this file is a derivative work published without necessary permission. whym (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio as photography work. --Vantey (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Nissin foods lost this case. Takabeg (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Tōkyō Kōtō Saibansho: writing "Cup" and "Noodle" in a standard font (普通の配列方法) isn't copyrightable in Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.[7]It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[8],[9],[10]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[11],[12],[13]--7'o'7 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator per COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW. I am aware of previous discussion, but but in my opinion the artwork on this package is above TOO and I request another deleion discussion. Josve05a (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the 2012 'keep' merits further discussion. The statement that "There is no copyright in a package (except a thing of art)" is wrong since printed wording on a package can be copyright-protected as a 'literary work' in exactly the same way as the text of a book ('literary work' is a particular type of copyright that covers textual works, and does not imply any literary merit). Also, printed designs, images, photos etc appearing on packaging are copyright-protected as 'artistic works' (again, a particular type of copyright, which does not imply any artistic merit). It would be useful to have translations of the Japanese legal precedent (not all the links still work).--MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 23:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[14],[15],[16]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[17],[18],[19]--7'o'7 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[20],[21],[22]--7'o'7 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art), and the protected period of the The Design right,意匠権 is 20 years(2007-) from registration. This product is not registered. This product was put on the market in 1959. Trademark is registered. It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[23],[24],[25]--7'o'7 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art), and the protected period of the The Design right,意匠権 is 20 years(2007-) from registration. This product is not registered. This product was put on the market in 1969. Trademark is registered. It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[26],[27],[28]--7'o'7 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - although this file was previously kept under the reason that it is product design with no copyright protection applicable, I cannot agree. It clearly depicts a photograph that should be copyrightable per se. whym (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 19:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,Trademark is not registered too.(okinawa suba is general name) IPDL FamilyMart Trademark is not in the photograph.
It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[29],[30],[31]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.[32]It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[33],[34],[35]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[36],[37],[38]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep by the analogous application of this judgment of hte Supreme Court of Japan. Takabeg (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[39],[40],[41]--7'o'7 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for architectural works in France. The sphere is the main subject of the photo. The triangular panels on the sphere's surface are clearly visible. 24.190.185.169 19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP in France Captain-tucker (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Iljunction-adumim2.PNG superceded by ILjunction-adumim.png.
Furthermore, no page currently links to ILjunction-adumim2.PNG
Atefrat (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. File:ILjunction-adumim.png -- Common Good (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Because They Dont Like To View And It Is A Speddy Deletion. Sonphan10 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- "This appears to be spurious. Possibly vandalism. Could some admin check it out? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy keep, vandalism from locked account Techman224Talk 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Duplicates File:M-554 blade.svg which was produced based on the standards from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The sign is also incorrect in that it omits the hyphen in "M-554", which was present on the actual street signs erected by the City of Marquette Department of Public Works. (The hyphen might not be very visible in File:M-554.jpg, but it was present in the sign.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, IMHO, this file better simulates the road sign at File:M-554.jpg by not including the dash & using better color match. If someone feels the other file is better for their project, by all means use that one. This file offers a choice. I see no reason why anyone should be locked in to the manual specified above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong color, the SVG uses Pantone 342 (as used by the DPW), as specified by the MUTCD, and the correct FHWA typeface, per the MUTCD. I am the one who photographed the sign, and I will swear your choice of texts that the hyphen was present on the sign at the time of photography. The lighting at the time was poor, but the hyphen was present in the street sign. Unfortunately, we can't retake the photo because that sign was removed in November 2005. PS, the MUTCD is the manual for highway signage design in the US. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've seen road signs in Michigan without the dash. Also, I used color matching software to the match the color in the image. Actual paints used when attempting to match a specified PMS don't always match the colors specified in a manual. I see that all the time. As I mentioned, this file offers a choice. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 04:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - is that the default font from Microsoft Office? No way that's accurate. --Rschen7754 05:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, you said you swear the dash in the M 554 sign is present, yet it looks like it's not present here as well? FieldMarine (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Cleanup, not in use, improved alternative on Commons:
S nova (talk) 10:06, 12 February 20 12 (UTC)
- Keep, alternatives are a good thing. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Prof. Professorson. --AlphaEta (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
On the website the mention Tous droits réservés (All rights reserved). So the logo is copyrighted mik@ni 10:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems {{PD-textlogo}} to me, so keep under that license. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
S nova (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, the suggested alternative is a PNG with a solid white background, this is an SVG with transparent background; looks much better to me. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with it. Alternatives are a good thing. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Prof. Professorson. --AlphaEta (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
S nova (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, no equivalent. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
S nova (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
S nova (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This version is worth retaining because it shows the sulfonic acid group in more detail. --AlphaEta (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Dated 1960, the PD tag claims it is PD because the life of the author plus 70 yrs - but this would make the resulting date atleast 2030, so I think this is unfree. Acather96 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging (but does this meet the threshold of originality) Acather96 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
license
[edit]I (Sasan Geranmehr) capture this photo by my casio camera and I put this photo licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Sasan Geranmehr (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- No-one is disputing that you didn't take the photo, it's just that the subject (the chocolate bar's packaging, logos and design) are copyrighted by Nestle, not you. Henceforth this file is not acceptable for Commons, see Commons:Derivative works for more info. Acather96 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
no Freedom of Panorama in Iceland. Sculptor died 1982. JuTa 15:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.139.62 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:De minimis, the building is just discerned.--Trixt (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it was scanned from a book. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the author of each of the individual artworks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Not author of font. Ragimiri (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Not author of font. Ragimiri (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, includes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, includes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The image of two argentine celebrities has been stolen from a personal twitter account. Ileana n (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing Polarlys (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"File:IR2011mapc.png" superceded by "File:Ir2011map2.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. Atefrat (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
"File:IR2011mapc.png" superceded by "File:Ir2011map2.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. Atefrat (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge2beige.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3beige.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. --Atefrat (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge2beige.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3beige.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. Atefrat (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge2.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. --Atefrat (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge2.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. Atefrat (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. --Atefrat (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
"File:ILbridge.png" superceded by "File:ILbridge3.png" (both works by me - Atefrat) Additionally, there are no pages that link to this file. Atefrat (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of paintings or photographs, where FOP doesn't apply. Authorship information for the original artwork hasn't been provided by the uploader, so it's impossible to assert their copyright status.
- File:Wall paintings showing lives - main gallary at राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ office.JPG
- File:Wall paintings main gallary at राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ office.JPG
- File:Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and others main stature.JPG
- File:राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ paintings.JPG
- File:Golwalkar Sangha pracarak राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ sangraha wooven carpet.JPG
- File:राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ paintings icons gift.JPG
- File:Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar home.JPG
- File:राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ sangraha painting.JPG
- File:Golwalkar Sangha pracarak राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ.JPG
- File:राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ international volunteers.JPG
- File:Lion icon painting at राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ karyalay Nagpur Maharashtra.JPG
Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photos; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear.
- File:Rémi Vaillaud.jpg
- File:Anne so.jpg
- File:Armand Breton.jpg
- File:Hugo THIBO.JPG
- File:Yoann Puisay.jpg
- File:Nelson Pion.jpg
- File:Maxence.JPG
- File:Nadjib.jpg
- File:Damien de iuliis.jpg
- File:Beillal.jpg
Hystrix (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Isis_asia2000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]most likely not own work. a lot of derivatives already deleted, number 1 is taken from some faculty source, number 3 is found in a smaller version on the person's linkedin profile
- File:Cheryl Marie Cordeiro at the IFP at IESE, Barcelona, Spain. 2011..jpg
- File:Cheryl Marie Cordeiro at the University of Gothenburg. Sweden.jpg
- File:Cheryl Marie Cordeiro, black and white.JPG
- File:Cheryl Marie Cordeiro.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Serichonstudio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope, no permission and cheeky advertising.
- File:นาท คาซอย เสรีชน.JPG
- File:อ.ถิง ธีระชัย ธรเสนา เสรีชน.jpg
- File:ราชันย์ สุขยั่งยืน เสรีชน.jpg
- File:โจ เสรีชน.jpg
- File:เชฐ.jpg
- File:จีร่า จิราพร เสรีชน.jpg
- File:ถ่ายเอ็มวีขุนแผนฯ.JPG
- File:สักศิลา เสรีชน.jpg
- File:ถ่ายเอ็มวีขุนแผนฯ.jpg
- File:ขุนแผน.jpg
- File:สิมา เสรีชน.jpg
- File:โจ เสรีชน.JPG
- File:หมู วรินทร เสรีชน.jpg
- File:เสรีชนสตูดิโอ.jpg
- File:เสรีชน.jpg
- File:โอภาส ณ บางช้าง เสรีชน.JPG
- File:เชฐ.JPG
- File:เชฐ เสรีชน.jpg
RE rillke questions? 12:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Used in promotion, out of scope, please delete--Motopark (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Serichonstudio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope; not a personal/promotional photo repository.
TJH2018talk 16:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Screenshot. And we have an SVG at File:Flag of Cambodia.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong shape, wrong colors, tower is different. See coat of arm of Holešov at official site. Correct CoA is here: File:Holesov2.svg --Sevela.p 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation; http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/suarez-at-melwood-photo-special Dudek1337 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - Commons is no private photo host 80.187.106.96 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
group photo, unused, oos Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused group photo - out of scope High Contrast (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain status. Retored after a complain. The source website says: "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game, but don't just rip art resources and pass them around." That's probably not sufficient, but let's discuss. All images from Category:Screenshots of Minecraft are concerned by this DR. Yann (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. (a) That's not a free license. (b) In particular, that's not {{Cc-by-3.0}}, as the uploader claimed. (c) It's self-contradictory. You're free to do "whatever" except distribute it? (d) There is no explicit permission for commercial uses or permission to distribute derivative works, as required by Commons:Licensing. (e) The screenshot explicitly says "do not distribute" in the screenshot itself. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also in the same agreement, they reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect, which is in contradiction with any free license that is irrevocable by nature. Delete. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also in the same agreement, they reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect, which is in contradiction with any free license that is irrevocable by nature.
- Keep I changed {{Cc-by-3.0}} to {{Minecraft}}, and I'm sure the "do not distribute" is referring to Minecraft itself. おやすみ (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- That template should also be deleted. The terms it links to state under "The One Major Rule": "Do not distribute anything we've made" and "Do not make commercial use of anything we've made." Again, they also prohibit distributing "art resources." This is very clearly non-free. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The players can take screenshots and distribute. They only can't extract the images directly from the program itself, in his code.--MisterSanderson (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment These concerns have been raised before, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/12#Minecraft screenshots. It is important to note that Minecraft's Terms of Use changed between March 2011 ( see [42] ) and May 2011 ( see [43] ) when the retroactive clause "We reserve the right to change this agreement" was added. Later the terms migrated from copyright.jsp to their current location at http://www.minecraft.net/terms (which further added "you may not resell any gift codes ..." and "Do not make commercial use of anything we've made." ). I think it is important to always link the conditions that were extant at the time of each uploaded screenshot, and not to use a general template.
- Therefore, the current terms might very well exclude this File:Minecraft 1.1 Title.png because it is from 2012. Depending how we interpret the older copyright pages, some of the other files in the category might be considered acceptable.
- My remaining comments concern only these sentences of the March 2011 copyright page whose archive I linked above: "Do not distribute anything I've made. This includes the client and the server software for the game." and "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game, but don't just rip art resources and pass them around." I interpret the first two sentences as referring to the software and the included media resources (texture files, sound and music files), and the third sentence as referring to screenshots and videos made while the program is running, with the "art resources" being the various texture and icon files stored in the minecraft.jar program file . My one concern is with a few screenshots I uploaded in late 2010, and that is whether the small icons in the inventory and hotbar constitute "art resources". Those icons are rendered as exact cropped matches from the art resources files, scaled in size relative to the game window. For myself I would consider blurring or replacing those icons to avoid all doubt of abusing the de-minimis defence, but I would consider the randomly generated terrain as not being a copy of an art resource . -84user (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that the terms have never explicitly allowed commercial use or distribution of derivative works, and they've never explicitly claimed to be perpetual. The fact that earlier versions were silent on the matter does not mean that we can wishfully infer that those permissions were granted and that previous versions of the terms were perpetual – especially not in light of subsequent clarifications, which make it abundantly clear that the intent was never for these terms to be anything even remotely approaching free terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is this something we can send a message to Mojang to ask for clarification? They feel like the sort of company that would be willing to do so if we asked nicely. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is certainly the best solution to keep these images. Yann (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I just saw Jens Bergensten say on Twitter (here) that they're fine with people making money with Minecraft clips, so I'm sure they'd be fine with screenshots on Wikimedia Commons. Wagner (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Making money on adverts from Minecraft clips is not really the same as selling those clips directly. It basically means they're fine with people posting gameplays of Minecraft on youtube and making money through the youtube ads, but it doesn't mean they're okay with other types of commercial use. Besides, it still doesn't clarify if derivative works are allowed, and especially if those derivative works can be distributed. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Non-copyright restrictions (such as using a different name for the product, not using trademarks, etc) are allowed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? The issues are that the terms prohibit distribution of "anything we've made" in general and "art resources" in particular, that they prohibit commercial use of "anything we've made," that derivative works are not explicitly permitted, and that the terms may change at any time. Those are all copyright issues. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The terms say that you can use and reuse and redistribute and alter the content. And then there is a statement saying that you should rip the design off. It's a non-copyright restriction. Compare with De_minimis#Crops_of_de_minimis_images, although crops aren't allowed they are not considered the same thing as "no derivative licence", same here (actually now thinking about it, de minimis is actually a copyright restriction, so if we delete this, we must definitely delete every de minimis image, as it's less free than these ones). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with anything? The issues are that the terms prohibit distribution of "anything we've made" in general and "art resources" in particular, that they prohibit commercial use of "anything we've made," that derivative works are not explicitly permitted, and that the terms may change at any time. Those are all copyright issues. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Note the "Do Not Distribute" in the bottom right corner. Taking a screenshot from the paid game and letting people who haven't paid for the game see the screenshot is a direct violation of Mojang's copyright. 94.175.12.136 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Do Not Distribute"... screenshots? Or the game? They specificly allow users to make Screenshots and use them so I do not think that the text is a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep They allow users to make screenshots: "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game". They also ask ask users "but don't just rip art resources and pass them around, that's no fun." but it is as I read it a not a "it is forbidden" but a "please don't". --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't address that it's not a perpetual license. It never claimed to be a perpetual license, and the statement that "we reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect" clearly indicates that it was never intended to be. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The "Do not distribute" text refers to the actual game and game software files (i.e the minecraft.jar file). Mojang has specifically said that they allow screenshots of the game. "You're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game, but don't just rip art resources and pass them around, that's no fun." The art resources refer to the texture files and skin resources used in the game, as in the art resources located inside the minecraft.jar, not the screenshots. I don't see an issue with this file; can this request be closed now? - OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per the reason above. 74.96.253.93 00:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "You're free to" is neither here nor there, especially, if followed with "but" right after (and it is certainly possible to laboriously "rip" art ressources from screenshots). This is just Another Case of The Ubisoft.--217.226.79.246 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now these arguments are just becoming wild guesses and speculative warnings. - OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This kills my understanding of free licrensing. In a sense, it reminds me of photos made available by Anders Behring Breivik with the description of allowing anyone any use for them This is not explicitly stated free license and stretching its interpretation this much is ouside the boundaries I personally see as proper permission. A free license includes passing resources around for the heck and fun of it and I am unsure as to whether the creators of the game really want it. Same applies to all Minecraft art, unless proper permission can be obtained. Wpedzich (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Minecraft license clearly say that any people can distribute and do whatever they want with videos, screenshots and other product of GAMEPLAY, but not permits to do some commercial use with minecraft resources — textures, files, etc (for example, use some minecraft texture files in hiw own game or program etc and sell it). That permition is clear for understanding, it`s fully OK to wikipedia, and I can`t understand what are you talking about. Do you need mojangas comment for that clearly fact? Sorry for my english.--Ohar (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. Files hosted here must be free for any use, including commercial uses. This so-called license is so vague and self-contradictory that we can't in good conscience rely on it to tell reusers with any kind of certainty what they can and cannot do. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete And move to local wikis as fair use. Mojang's licensing is sort of unclear, but the way I'm interpreting it, is it's basically a strict copyright on the game, and a non-commercial license on screenshots. But I'm not certain. Since it's vague, it is always better to be safe and use it under fair use, rather than assume a free license.--Unionhawk (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As I read the terms Mojang puts on Minecraft, I understand "Screenshot is OK even for commercial use" (do whatever you want) "but game files (tilesets, charasets, etc.) are off limits" (but don't just rip art resources and pass them around.)
- Trust me, except eventually for the HUD, it will be REALLY hard to rip game files from a screenshot. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 15:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't imagine I could upload an image with a stipulation that I can reclaim all rights to use, alter and distribute it if I so choose. That is effectively what the current licensing for this image is, the terms state: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect." (emphasis added) [44].Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The current terms as explained by User:84user above are explicitly revocable ("We reserve the right to change this agreement [...] with immediate and/or retroactive effect") and explicitly noncommercial ("Do not make commercial use of anything we've made."). On top of that earlier versions were unclear about whether they were revocable or noncommercial, and later clarifications clearly suggest the original intent. I can't believe, in the present situation, any Minecraft image or video is acceptable under Commons:Licensing. However, the license continues to embrace publishing of Minecraft images and videos on fan sites and YouTube, which is all Mojang really cares about. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- New images: Delete because the licence is revocable. All images: Delete because the licence is non-commercial and unclear. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The license is revocable ("We reserve the right to change this agreement with immediate and/or retroactive effect"), doesn't state that it allows derivative works anywhere in the terms, and also may be non-commercial ("Do not make commercial use out of anything we made"). These images can only be used under fair use, which is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The 5 files in use on English Wikipedia have been uploaded there as fair use. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- And you should upload the other files to the local wikis that use them if this can't be kept on commons. It might be a bit tedious, but that's what you (in general) get for interpreting it so strictly. - OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which of the other projects allow fair use of game illustrations? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- @OjdvQ9fNJWl I only speak English. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which of the other projects allow fair use of game illustrations? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- And you should upload the other files to the local wikis that use them if this can't be kept on commons. It might be a bit tedious, but that's what you (in general) get for interpreting it so strictly. - OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Let's ask some people from Mojang what they think about it. We have good reason for the interpretation, that all uses are allowed, while some are discouraged. Lipedia (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is clearly not sufficient for hosting on Commons, as their "but" does not grant a perpetual licence, to use the resources for any purpose. russavia (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Because I mistakenly uploaded the full version of the song instead of the short version. Sorry, please delete this file. Thanks Karlen91 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 11#File:HowrahBridge Monsoonclouds.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Vermutliche Verletzung der Persönlichkeitsrechte (siehe spanische Beschreibung und Quell-Link). Es ist der einzige globale Beitrag des Benutzers Trasen. Hystrix (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. The person shown here died in 1944. No evidence that the scupltor died at least 50 years ago, so might be copyrighted in Azerbaijan. No evidence that it was out of copyright in Azerbaijan on the URAA date (4 June 1999) so might also be copyrighted in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the posters are derivative works and there is no indication that permission from the copyright holders for them to be licensed has been obtained. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work (due to the other upload of this user File:PS-5_2-big.jpg and low res and too good quality). Permission from photographer needs to be documented. Note: Since Mi 14 Jul 2010 18:12:05 CEST (according to "HTTP modified" date) at http://harmonyguitar.net/files/2010/07/-2271105578323281.jpg - although in a smaller res. But that is quite confirming. Saibo (Δ) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union: insufficient freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. According to en:26 Commissars Memorial, it was made by Alesker Huseynov (year of birth and death unknown) and later demolished in 2009. az:26 Bakı komissarı has the image caption "26 Bakı kommisarlarına qurulmuş memorial (1958-2009)", so I take it that it was constructed in 1958. Unless the sculptor died in 1961 or earlier (i.e. within three years of finishing the monument), the monument is still copyrighted in Azerbaijan, where 50 years p.m.a. appears to be applied. The Wikipedia article states that he later became a prominent politician, so I assume that he lived for quite some time after finishing the monument and that it is thus copyrighted in Azerbaijan. It will remain copyrighted in the United States until the end of 2053, since it was copyrighted in Azerbaijan on the URAA date (4 June 1999). Thus, copyrighted in both the United States and in the source country. Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
there are much better pictures of aircraft and much better pictures of housing estates DexDor (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as looking at the information on the page, the explanation provided (with relevant geolocation and date) makes this more than a picture of aircraft or a picture of a housing estate, rather a record of this particular anniversary event.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep part of a larger composition and artworks barely visible. I'm the author of the picture and of course I'd like it to stay in wikimedia commons. I'm not quite familiar with the copyright terms, but as far as I know the copyright of the picture is mine that I've released it to wikimedia commons. What I'm not quite sure is if the content of the picture (the several designs and logos on the packages) are protected by copyright of the owner in such a case. I've upload it in order to describe and explain Indomie and Instant noodle articles in wikipedia. If we follow strict package copyright rules as suggested by User:Acather96 I think wikimedia commons will lose large number of food product package images, not just Indomie but a whole lot images of product and food packaging, although the purpose is only informational and non commercial. Do we really want that? Gunkarta (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
,_Halt!_,_by_Tizian_Sander_2010.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_018.jpg){kind=link}
_017.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
,_Halt!_,_by_Tizian_Sander_2010.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Halt!_,_by_Tizian_Sander_2010.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Halt!_,_by_Tizian_Sander_2010.JPG){kind=link}
,_Halt!_,_by_Tizian_Sander_2010.JPG){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){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}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
_018.jpg){kind=link}
_018.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unauthorized derivative work of presumably copyrighted text Acather96 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
_018.jpg){kind=link}
- Per this nomination withdrawn. Acather96 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
_018.jpg){kind=link}
_017.jpg){kind=link}
_017.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unauthorized derivative work of presumably copyrighted text Acather96 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
_017.jpg){kind=link}
- Spanish FOP appears to cover any object permanently affixed outdoors, including this text. The Spanish word used is "obra" which means "work" and there is no limitation to statues or buildings. Keep -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, per the above, nomination withdrawn. Acather96 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
_017.jpg){kind=link}
Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed several years ago ... don't know if anything in the policy has changed since then?! --Carstor (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC) The File:WalterCover.jpg is taken from the cover by permission of the chief editor of this number: by Natias Neutert.
- Delete - We do not have any evidence of that stated permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
this image has been uploaded solely to highlight an artifact on another image. the discussion on the user page where this image is used seems to be over (last post august 2010). I think this image can be safely removed as i don't see any other use for it. Japs 88 (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have moved it to the appropriate category Category:Image detail for discussion where such images should be put, rather than in the main category tree. It is still in use therefore not subject to deletion. Even if it weren't in a current talk page, but in an archived page I would still retain such images otherwise the archived page no longer makes sense. Nothing would be gained by deleting it (not even storage space as it's a wiki, 'deletion' just hides it). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced this jpeg with an svg, seen here: 
. I have updated all pages using this logo, so this jpeg no longer links to anything... Illinois2011 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Reasonable to delete a JPEG through this deletion process now that the SVG exists. (Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates) --Closeapple (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment You have only updated all Wikimedia pages using this logo, but external projects might use it using mw:InstantCommons. If you delete this image, those other projects might get into trouble (although it could maybe be solved by creating a redirect to the SVG file). Also note that the JPG file has two versions of the logo. Maybe it should be split in two. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Sculptures by Renato Barisani (1918-2011), artworks by Karim Rashid (still living) and no FOP in Italy. Trixt (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Visto che voglio capire qualcosa, parlerò italiano. Mi potete spiegare perché la mia immagine deve essere cancellata? La legge non ammette eccezioni, ma perlomeno spiegatemi cosa è tutto quell'ambaradan di polemiche di cui la voce sulla legge parla.--CityClass (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see Commons:Libertà di panorama . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThere is no copyright in a package(except a thing of art),This product is not registered Design right,ja:意匠権,only Trademark registered.(IPDL)It is a judicial precedent of the packaging design of Japanese oolong tea. Please refer to it.(Japanese site)[45],[46],[47]--7'o'7 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Behalten Keine Schöpfungshöhe erkennbar. --Mogelzahn (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: THe photograph of the noodles almost certainly is complex enough to have a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per Tōkyō Kōtō Saibansho and the Nisshin Shokuhin case[48], the only thing copyrightable would seem to be the artwork to the right of the word "SPICY". But maybe that is de minimis? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I think we are safe with de minimis here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted package guerreritoboy (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for being an instance of industrial design with no copyright eligibility. Non-artistic industrial design of mass-produced material is in general not covered by copyright per the サントリー黒烏龍茶 case (ja) and [49] (ja). Although this design as a whole is probably protected by design right, publishing photos of them do not infringe it (as opposed to producing and distributing imitated products), as far as I understand. We'd better, however, put proper notices regarding design rights and registered trademark. --whym (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- KeepThe image was probably taken in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland (German language product and uploader), so Japanese law is not relevant. The only thing that could have a copyright here is the sun at the bottom of the label, and, as I suggested above, it looks de minimis to me. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Jim and Whym. Yann (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Photo #3234-2 from Roger Viollet from a set of photos by Henri Martinie (1881-1963) taken in 1930 (not 1926). Marked as possible copyviol by Martin H. [50]. --87.118.93.143 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJean_Baptiste_Perrin.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=66886599&oldid=66886443){kind=link}
- Comment Any source for this statement? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The American Institute of Physics credits the photo [51] (backup link) to AB Lagrelius & Westphal, which is the photo company used by the Nobel Foundation (it is credited in most photos of Les Prix Nobel). The photo was taken before 1942 (Perrin's death), thus PD-Sweden. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
![[51]](http://photos.aip.org/searchResult2.jsp?item_id=Perrin%20Jean%20Baptiste%20A6&fname=perrin_jean_a6.jpg&title=null&description=old%20age;%20full-face;%20suit&credit=Photograph%20by%20A.B.%20Lagrelius%20&%20Westphal,%20courtesy%20AIP%20Emilio%20Segre%20Visual%20Archives.&photoDate=null&storePublished=Y&color=null&names=Perrin,%20Jean-Baptiste&contactID=null){kind=link}
- Thats the engraver or printmaker of that publication. Not the photographer. The question here is not the engravers copyright but those of the photographer. The photographer is given at http://www.roger-viollet.fr/accueil.aspx, search 'Perrin', go to page 4. --Martin H. (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, thanks, you know much better than I how to find images. I AGF that Martinie is the author, but the question is where was this photo published and copyrighted first. At the moment, I tend to think Martinie provided his unpublished photo to the Foundation who printed and copyrighted it. The copyright sign by www.roger-viollet.fr is just a blanket protection of their website. For example, if you look at the AIP photoarchives, they blanket copyright all their content, even though they may not claim copyright for some photos (like this one). In other words, copyright for many Nobel photos is claimed elsewhere, but it does not mean the claims are valid. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It also not means that the claim is invalid, not for the next 22 years. I think you must make this up with roger-viollet, apparently they manage the copyrights on this authors work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, thanks, you know much better than I how to find images. I AGF that Martinie is the author, but the question is where was this photo published and copyrighted first. At the moment, I tend to think Martinie provided his unpublished photo to the Foundation who printed and copyrighted it. The copyright sign by www.roger-viollet.fr is just a blanket protection of their website. For example, if you look at the AIP photoarchives, they blanket copyright all their content, even though they may not claim copyright for some photos (like this one). In other words, copyright for many Nobel photos is claimed elsewhere, but it does not mean the claims are valid. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The company Lagrelius & Westphal printed the photos for Les Prix Nobel. This is good evidence for the photo having been published in Sweden in 1927, so that {{PD-Sweden}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the photo was given to Nobel the way they describe themself [52] then I dont think its valid to assume first publication in Sweden. They not know any details about the work = they not contracted a photographer, the photo wasnt exclusively taken for them and also not taken specially for publication in connection with the nobel price. They just asked the subject (or institution) to provide a photo, the subject (or institution) gave a photo that circulated already. That scenario is much, much, much more likely. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Insitutional memory loss. Normally, the Nobel foundation makes their own photo of the laureate, I assume when they are in Stockholm for the ceremony. In some cases, other photos are used, maybe because the laureate did not come to the ceremony or because they like a different portrait much better. But it looks like this photo of Perrin was made because he received the Nobel prize and for publication in Les Prix Nobel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- What make it look so? Why do they normaly make their own photo if they say otherwise? What source of information does allow you to assume that photos are made in Stockholm? If another photo is used becaue they like it more - or whatever - then it is strange to assume that the photo is first published elsewhere, they would take a photo that was published already and they want it published also with the nobel prize... --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Insitutional memory loss. Normally, the Nobel foundation makes their own photo of the laureate, I assume when they are in Stockholm for the ceremony. In some cases, other photos are used, maybe because the laureate did not come to the ceremony or because they like a different portrait much better. But it looks like this photo of Perrin was made because he received the Nobel prize and for publication in Les Prix Nobel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the photo was given to Nobel the way they describe themself [52] then I dont think its valid to assume first publication in Sweden. They not know any details about the work = they not contracted a photographer, the photo wasnt exclusively taken for them and also not taken specially for publication in connection with the nobel price. They just asked the subject (or institution) to provide a photo, the subject (or institution) gave a photo that circulated already. That scenario is much, much, much more likely. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
![[52]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AJohn_Steinbeck_1962.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=29228559&oldid=28679391){kind=link}
Deleted: We have had this argument over similar Nobel Prize photos in the past -- the question is whether it was taken in Sweden or supplied by the subject, having been published eleswhere first. We don't know, therefor COM"PRP applies. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, Angelus removed a no-source tag without giving a proper source. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Here we are approaching the ridicule and persecution against me! I removed the tags because I gave the exact link of it.wiki, where I took the image!!! [53] Angelus(talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMarine_Merit.png&action=historysubmit&diff=66929329&oldid=66929179){kind=link}
- I am afraid, that's not enough. Can you talk to any it.wikipedia admin and copy the source which was given there? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough? Have you read here?
- Italiano: (missing text)16:08, 12 feb 2012 Narayan89 (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato "File:Laurel wreath2.png" ((C11) File doppio e orfano, non funzionante, vuoto o già presente su Commons: File:Marine Merit.png)
- English: (missing text)16:08, 12 February 2012 Narayan89 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File: Laurel wreath2.png" ((C11) Double and orphan file, not working, blank or already present on Commons: File: Marine Merit.png)
- --Angelus(talk) 18:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it.wikipedia is not a valid source. You will have to furnish the source that was given at it.wikipedia. That's why I mentioned in my previous comment that you will have to talk to an admin over there. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Done - I inserted the source that was given at it.wikipedia. Angelus(talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it.wikipedia is not a valid source. You will have to furnish the source that was given at it.wikipedia. That's why I mentioned in my previous comment that you will have to talk to an admin over there. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough? Have you read here?
- I am afraid, that's not enough. Can you talk to any it.wikipedia admin and copy the source which was given there? --Sreejith K (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Source is OK now. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not really; I tagged that source as having no source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Angelus(talk) 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: A source that has been dleted is no source. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the included images was deleted, two other images are not on Commons. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I replaced the image deleted. And the two images on it.wiki are under a free license! Angelus(talk) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not clear that it:File:MAXXI Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo, Roma, 2009 .JPG is free; are there verified permissions by the architect of the building and by the photographer? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This file was deleted before. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAXXI Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo, Roma, 2009 .JPG --Sreejith K (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me, I will replace that image, as soon as possible. Angelus(talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I replaced the image. Angelus(talk) 16:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does not really help: also Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome) is modern architecture, the problem is still the same. Most images in Category:Renzo Piano should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by which law buildings are copyrighted by architects/engineers/designers? Theirrules yourrules 07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does not really help: also Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome) is modern architecture, the problem is still the same. Most images in Category:Renzo Piano should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I replaced the image. Angelus(talk) 16:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me, I will replace that image, as soon as possible. Angelus(talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This file was deleted before. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MAXXI Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo, Roma, 2009 .JPG --Sreejith K (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not clear that it:File:MAXXI Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo, Roma, 2009 .JPG is free; are there verified permissions by the architect of the building and by the photographer? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Models of objects may be copyrighted even if the original object is not. A.Savin 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrS. (talk • contribs) 2012-02-12T18:44:08 (UTC)
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SVT_137_154_modell_Piko_a.jpg&diff=66670112&oldid=64641281){kind=link}
- Is there a problem if it's just a photo of an object? --Temporaer (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Toys are covered by the same rules as sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Duplicates File:M-554 blade.svg which was produced based on the standards from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The sign is also incorrect in that it omits the hyphen in "M-554", which was present on the actual street signs erected by the City of Marquette Department of Public Works. (The hyphen might not be very visible in File:M-554.jpg, but it was present in the sign.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 04:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, IMHO, this file better simulates the road sign at File:M-554.jpg by not including the dash & using better color match. If someone feels the other file is better for their project, by all means use that one. This file offers a choice. I see no reason why anyone should be locked in to the manual specified above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete see other DR for my comments about Calibri. --Rschen7754 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason "focus of the image is on the plate with plainly copyrightable elements that belong to Florida, not the uploader" by Fourthords (talk · contribs), but at least some works of Florida government are public domain under the Florida constitution. Closeapple (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: License plate is {{PD-FLGov}}. Per en:Copyright status of work by the Florida government, the state government and local governments of Florida cannot claim copyright over their own "public record made or received in connection with the official business" of the government except when permitted specifically by state statute. What constitutes "public record" can be construed broadly, as in Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner (court ruled that Collier County cannot require private entities to sign a licensing agreement before obtaining GIS map data). The license plate design is published openly on the official Florida HSMV website — for example, at http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/newtag.html — and there has been no evidence given that license plate design is one of the categories exempted by statute. (As a side note: California is another state with a fairly broad prohibition on copyright by its own governments.) --Closeapple (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The page to which you pointed says at the bottom: "Copyright ©2008 State of Florida", and those passenger plates exhibit the same design elements as the motorcycle plate nominated. Furthermore, the plate at the Florida website is already uploaded to the English Wikipedia (File:Florida license plate.gif) as a copyrighted image per the same website. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that Florida government agencies have often failed to acknowledge their own public domain obligations, and placed boilerplate copyright messages on things that the Florida constitution and statutes deny the agencies copyright to. See en:Talk:Copyright status of work by the Florida government for a discussion of this same issue with the MyFlorida.gov website. And, of course, the aforementioned Microdecisions, in which the county attempted to actually enforce this false copyright. (See also en:Copyfraud — this sort of false copyright assertion is commonplace. Many web portal applications even shove a copyright message onto the bottom of webpages even when the user didn't request it.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, regardless, the copyright of this derivative work doesn't belong to Stripey the crab (talk · contribs) to relicense; if appropriate, this needs to be retagged with the Floridian license. Secondly though, is it the responsibility of the uploader (or the retainer) to ensure this doesn't fall under one of Florida's specific exemptions? Does the state provide a list of these special exemptions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 06:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Taking each topic separately:
- Copyright in a derivative work does indeed belong to the author of the derivative work, even if the work was derived from a public domain work, as long as the derivative itself is original enough that it attracts copyright. Notice the Venus de Milo example in COM:DW; the same applies here if the Florida plate is PD. Now, if Stripey's shot were solely a direct duplicate that could not possibly attract separate copyright in the US, then it could be tagged as {{PD-Art|{{PD-FLGov}}}}; however, photographing the plate frame and wheel guard is probably sufficient that it is not considered a direct duplicate. It would probably be helpful to note {{PD-FLGov}} anyway, though.
- It is an uploader's responsibility to show that the upload is freely available; but if he has, then he has; and even if he hasn't, but we now have, then a file is not deleted just because it is someone other than the uploader that has shown it. (I assume you aren't implying that the uploader has to show exemption from every case where copyright could be applied: I doubt anyone could be expected to explain that the license plate is not part of a security plan for sheltering arrangements (119.071(3)(a)1.e) for a pari-mutuel facility that provides more than 4,000 seats for spectators (119.071(3)(b)5.a(II)(B)).)
- In Florida law: Sections 119.07 to 119.0714 provide the main exemptions to copyright: see Chapter 119. The only thing related to license plates that I see in Chapter 119 is 119.0712(2), which involves people's personal data, not the plate design. The Gold Star license plate is eligible for copyright explicitly in 320.0894(2); the word "copyright" does not appear anywhere else in Chapter 320 (Motor Vehicle Licenses). It's worth noting that the Gold Star act was passed in 2007, then other specialty license plates appear to have been added to 320.08058 later without mentioning copyright, when the legislature was already aware the provision could exist, yet didn't provide it.
- As far as using copyright notices as a determination of copyright: You'll notice that there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the Florida statutes themselves, which of course is a direct violation of not only Florida constitution, but of long-standing U.S. case law that edicts of government cannot be copyrighted because, since ignorance of the law is not a defense, it is necessary for people to have unrestricted access to what they must obey. So even the site with the laws disregards the law. --Closeapple (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Taking each topic separately:
- Well, regardless, the copyright of this derivative work doesn't belong to Stripey the crab (talk · contribs) to relicense; if appropriate, this needs to be retagged with the Floridian license. Secondly though, is it the responsibility of the uploader (or the retainer) to ensure this doesn't fall under one of Florida's specific exemptions? Does the state provide a list of these special exemptions? — Fourthords | =/\= | 06:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that Florida government agencies have often failed to acknowledge their own public domain obligations, and placed boilerplate copyright messages on things that the Florida constitution and statutes deny the agencies copyright to. See en:Talk:Copyright status of work by the Florida government for a discussion of this same issue with the MyFlorida.gov website. And, of course, the aforementioned Microdecisions, in which the county attempted to actually enforce this false copyright. (See also en:Copyfraud — this sort of false copyright assertion is commonplace. Many web portal applications even shove a copyright message onto the bottom of webpages even when the user didn't request it.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The page to which you pointed says at the bottom: "Copyright ©2008 State of Florida", and those passenger plates exhibit the same design elements as the motorcycle plate nominated. Furthermore, the plate at the Florida website is already uploaded to the English Wikipedia (File:Florida license plate.gif) as a copyrighted image per the same website. — Fourthords | =/\= | 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
