Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Likely copyvio per http://www.tineye.com/search/b003c1ac3ad4037458e0d60d6791972150a65bce/ Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
3 раза пытался загрузить и каждый раз изображение оказывалось битым. Обратился к администраторам - не помогли. Плюнул и загрузил в новый файл - ТКУ_33.jpg Anford (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Translation: Tried to upload 3 times and every time the image appeared broken. Requests to administrators did not help. Gave up and uploaded another file - ТКУ_33.jpg Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as an exact duplicate. Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
no license Joe Mathe (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily apparently per expired no-license tag. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
While this image may be PD, not enough information is supplied to make that call:
- Source link is bad.
- No evidence of Publication Pryor to 1923 (ie. current license is bad)
- No Author or evidence that author died over 70 years ago.
- A freely license image was found file:Brigham Henry Roberts.jpg
--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Cambalachero (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertising for website purpose, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just contacted Cowparade Holdings to see if they'll grant a free cultural work license. I'll forward to the proper systems on the off-chance I get a positive reply. Neko-chan (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: THe license will almost certainly have to come from the sculptor, not the owner. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it's illegal, then just delete it, why should we discuss about it? (these are not the most crucial photographs for wikipedia either, so it will not affect nor me nor wiki that much, n'est-ce pas). Ziel (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Per http://www.af.mil/search/imagesearch.asp?q=taurus this is a courtesy photo, likely by Orbital Sciences Corporation, who launches these rockets. WDGraham points out at File talk:Taurus 3210 launching ROCSAT 2.jpg that other sites cite the USAF as the author, but I see no reason to doubt the primary source's statement in favour of a third-party reuser. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is equally possible that the USAF website has made an error, and it does not state who originally provided the image. It is plausible that it could have been "courtesy" of a different part of the USAF, or even that they were uploading a number of "courtesy photos", and copied the caption in error. I just feel that it should be discussed before a decision is taken. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- While possible, I don't see the likelihood of such an error occurring as being very high, and have certainly never seen such a significant credit mislabelling before. In any case, we have to err on the side of caution; hosting copyright violations is unacceptable. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: When in doubt, our policy is to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Image of unremarkable person. Out of scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Image of unremarkable person. Out of scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 04:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
False claim of ownership, image is available on multiple internet sources. And, this is definitely not India, maybe New Zealand. —Bill william comptonTalk 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the person in the image and did not provide my consent for this photo to be taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Private individual, image is not used on any Wikimedia projects, identity claim should be taken in good faith at face value. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been closed "keep" on two occasions, but incorrectly. COM:IDENT#Consent requires that "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." There is no indication on the page that anybody ever thought about whether the subject had asserted the necessary consent; and it seems the subject actually asserted the opposite. This file should be deleted, and this should be an easy call, since it is not in use on any Wikimedia projects. Pete F (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- No this file will be kept because the person in question posed for the image = permission. Any other claims, especially those by the initial nominator above, should have gone through OTRS.--Denniss (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The policy quoted above states that the uploader needs to consider whether the photo is "appropriate for uploading to Commons." So even granting that the subject consented to being photographed -- how do we know she consented to anything more than taking a photo to send to her parents? We don't know if this photo was taken in a public or private place, or for what purpose. OTRS would be an excellent tool for asserting that there is consent; but absent anything stated in OTRS, we should err on the side of caution and delete. -Pete F (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page. After I uploaded it she wrote to me saying she did like the image and wanted all that I had uploaded taken down. She had a cold that day and did not like the puffiness under her eyes. I tried to have them deleted but obviously can not make that happen166.137.191.19 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. The subject hasn't consented and the image isn't being used anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--Andreas JN466 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. According to what 166.137 has said here, it sounds like the subject did grant consent, but later revoked it. Does that change the calculus any? Is such consent revocable? Powers (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are two separate issues: is consent, once given, irrevocable; and did she give it in the first place? The first is a legal question we can't answer. As for the second, she says she didn't, and in the absence of something equivalent to a signed contract, we can only go by her word, which is the ethical thing to do anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think that consent (to publish the file) was ever given -- or at least, we can't be confident it was. Powers, I think the comment from 166.137 was in response to a question I asked of the uploader, Susan Gerbic (it was made about an hour after my talk page note). There seems to be a grammatical problem above, and of course the uploader did not log in, so it's difficult to communicate with them. But my guess is that she left out the word "not" -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "she did like the image and wanted all … taken down." If both were true, the word "but" would typically be used, not "and." To me it seems the most likely explanation is that she meant to say "she did not like the image." (And even if she did like the image, liking it is not the same as consenting to publication.) We are of course now parsing text that is very far from ideal, so I accept that others might interpret it differently. But on the whole, I am not seeing any compelling reason to think the subject of the photo ever consented to publication of the image, and policy tells us that kind of consent is required. -Pete F (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I assumed "did not" was what was meant. But the first sentence: "I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page" implies that the photographer made the purpose of the photograph clear. Perhaps that is not the case. Powers (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, ok -- then, sorry for going off on that tangent. To sum up, then, now that I understand your question better:
- I agree with what Denniss said, that Ms. Stollznow consented to having her photo taken -- that much does seem apparent from the relaxed pose.
- Mere consent to have one's photo taken, though, is not sufficient: the policy says the uploader should consider what is appropriate for uploading to Commons.
- We don't know what understanding there might or might not have been between Ms. Stollznow or Ms. Gerber; we might infer from the IP's statement that Ms. Gerber's intent was to publish the photo here, but we have nothing to suggest it was clearly communicated to (much less agreed to by) Ms. Stollznow.
- It seems to me this new comment does nothing to change the need to delete the photo. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- (p.s. I agree this brings up some really interesting general questions about kinds of consent, and whether they are revokable -- and I'm eager to discuss those, but probably not here, because in this particular case I'm mainly concerned about whether sufficient consent was granted to begin with. Seems better to keep it simple. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
- Ah, ok -- then, sorry for going off on that tangent. To sum up, then, now that I understand your question better:
Goodness! I was responding on my phone and guess I wasn't signed in. What does it take to get a picture once uploaded taken down? These are real human beings we are dealing with and not just policies. The subject and the photographer (uploader) have requested that the image be deleted, this isn't a Rembrandt, but a photo. I take many many photos, which I upload. In this case this person did not like the image. Can we please just take down the image?Sgerbic (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly trending in that direction. But to understand why it's not a simple process, you have to understand what kind of repository we are. Since we're trying to make available images that anyone can use, for any purpose, deciding to revoke access to one of those images has many "downstream" implications. In addition to usage on Wikimedia projects, the files might be in use on other non-Wikimedia wikis (through mw:InstantCommons), or in art projects, or in advertising, or any number of other things. And in most of those cases, we don't know (nor have any way to know) about them. So removing media that is legitimately licensed with a free license causes many problems for re-users of that media. That's not a reason to keep the file, mind you -- but it is a reason to be very reluctant to delete a file just because the uploader changed his/her mind. Powers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sgerbic, did Ms. Stollznow ever initially explicitly agree to broad publication of this photo? It seems from what you've said that she probably didn't, but it might help to move things forward if you could state clearly one way or the other. -Pete F (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- She knew I was taking the image for WP. She did not see it before I uploaded it. Once she saw it she did not like it and asked for it to be removed. I tried to do that but did not understand how. I tried to do it right after uploading it.70.39.176.20 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. In my view this strengthens the case for deletion: it seems there was never strong consent for the upload to begin with (i.e., consent that was grounded in knowing what the image looked like). -Pete F (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- She knew I was taking the image for WP. She did not see it before I uploaded it. Once she saw it she did not like it and asked for it to be removed. I tried to do that but did not understand how. I tried to do it right after uploading it.70.39.176.20 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sgerbic, did Ms. Stollznow ever initially explicitly agree to broad publication of this photo? It seems from what you've said that she probably didn't, but it might help to move things forward if you could state clearly one way or the other. -Pete F (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly trending in that direction. But to understand why it's not a simple process, you have to understand what kind of repository we are. Since we're trying to make available images that anyone can use, for any purpose, deciding to revoke access to one of those images has many "downstream" implications. In addition to usage on Wikimedia projects, the files might be in use on other non-Wikimedia wikis (through mw:InstantCommons), or in art projects, or in advertising, or any number of other things. And in most of those cases, we don't know (nor have any way to know) about them. So removing media that is legitimately licensed with a free license causes many problems for re-users of that media. That's not a reason to keep the file, mind you -- but it is a reason to be very reluctant to delete a file just because the uploader changed his/her mind. Powers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Consent issue, good alternative available, not in use. INeverCry 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the person in this image and did not consent to this phot being taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Private individual, image is not used on any Wikimedia projects, identity claim should be taken in good faith at face value. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There is another file, Karen Stollznow.jpg, with the same subject matter, that the subject herself feels is a better quality picture. This newer file Karen Stollznow 1.jpg is not referenced by anything. So we'd like to request it be deleted for those reasons, and perhaps under the rule it be superseded by the original file (though I am new at this and hope I am wording it correctly). I tried contacting the admin from an earlier delete request (via their talk page), but given the response I don't think my request was clear, and then the admin said they were taking a hiatus until August 6. So I am requesting it here. Rjmail (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Fastily and undeleted by me - no reason to delete a freely licensed image just because the depicted person doesn't like it. --Denniss (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it, but didn't realize that creative commons noncommercial files were not allowed Kangaroopowah 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a good faith mistake. Nice image though, I hope you will consider making commercially-reusable uploads in the future! -Pete F (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Promotional, tryed to use twice in page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casete, out of scope Motopark (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
album-cover presumably copyrighted by band or label, no evidence uploader owns copyright. Fair-use would be out-of-scope on commons. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
album-cover presumably copyrighted by band or label, no evidence uploader owns copyright. Fair-use would be out-of-scope on commons. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Most probably copyvio (look at: http://www.batesasia.com/ ) Leafnode✉ 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the linked website disclaimer "Information at this site is provided solely for the user's information". This does not release images into the public domain, and does not allow the website's information to be distributed commercially. 117Avenue (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope and copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
not taken by uploader, old picture from? newspaper ? unknowed source --MGuf (d) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this image is the own work of the uploader: there are no valid EXIF information and the image resolution is a typical web image size High Contrast (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is the own work of the uploader: there are no valid EXIF information and the image resolution is a typical web image size High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
May not pass the test to be copyrightable but as it is unused then the precautionary principle should be applied. QU TalkQu 09:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrited art, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the problem with my picture ? Roman.b (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- L'auteur de l'escargot ne l'a pas mis sous licence libre, la photo est un travail dérivé, ce n'est pas accepté sur Commons. L'alternative à la suppression est la communication par l'artiste qu'il met cette œuvre sous licence libre... voir Commons:Œuvre dérivée.
- Author didn't put his work under free licence, picture is derivated work, only way to keep the file is the author send authorisation to put his work under free licence. See Commons:Derivative works. ----MGuf (d) 08:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the problem with my picture ? Roman.b (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP in France Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copy of copyrited paper --MGuf (d) 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of an unidentified individual. Appears to be a personal image, no educational value QU TalkQu 10:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of an unidentified individual. No educational value. QU TalkQu 10:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, poor image quality, individuals unidentified, no educational value. Also, appears to be in a private location and no permission from other subjects QU TalkQu 10:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't see why this is PD-OLD, it doesn't seem to be a statue. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It says "2001" on the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If you can read it, it is just text and so outside of Commons scope. Can't read it well enough to confirm the content but it looks non educational too QU TalkQu 10:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
out of line/scope -- Commons is really no private photo album 80.187.96.13 11:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Subject is notable, see Chris Daw but image published here http://wwwchrisdawca.blogspot.com/. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Description is clearly notable person, see Cat and WP:EN Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted building, no FOP in France (to be uploaded on wp:fr) --MGuf (d) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No License Joe Mathe (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Book cover from 1960, copright not clear Funfood ␌ 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unknown person, single upload, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
False copyright note and false description. The image is taken from the website of a Georgian dance group, and depicts the group during a tour of America. See http://www.barynya.com/gd/photo.htm The same uploader has stolen a mumber of images from the same site and placed them on Commons under the description of "Tanci-musica" and described them as Azeri dancers. Meowy (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertising business card, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No indication of source for photographs making up the collage, CC license implausible... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, probably copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Claim of "own work" not credible. Almost certainly a copyright image. Sadly the porn filter at work prevents me verifying this right now! QU TalkQu 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The file is copied from http://www.virtualani.org/arter/index.htm. MikaelF (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The file is copied from http://www.virtualani.org/arter/index.htm. MikaelF (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission - uploader isn't source, yet is claiming a self license Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- See also en:File:Plopilor_Vest.jpg
All the pictures uploaded by me, were stated in an email from bogdan.dico@dicositiganas.ro to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' and to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' in which he says that all these pictures have the companies permission to be on wikipedia... They are also to be seen and downloaded from the companies facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/dicositiganas
- Two points:
- Has this email been passed to WP:OTRS? If so, there should be an OTRS ticket number that can be displayed on the uploads with a template.
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia. Media uploaded here must be freely licenced for anyone to use it, not just "permission to be on Wikipedia". It's still possible that these images can be licensed for use on Wikipedia and in their article, but aren't acceptably licensed for Commons.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two points:
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope COM:PS AtelierMonpli (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Nearly unreadable diagram, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
banner - out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, see source Gumruch (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork Honza chodec (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
poster for some convention, not usable, out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
personal photo Honza chodec (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
temporary file, not used anymore Honza chodec (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not needed now George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyrighted image, but I can't find a source online. The watermark also makes me wonder. Albacore (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some hits: http://www.tineye.com/search/61723a31079d241e46bb4ed9b5a40666cbfce710/?sort=size&order=desc. --Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely a copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
not usefull banner Honza chodec (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - all rights reserved, per http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=46253&what=species . the CC-BY indication on the page with the smaller thumbnail appears to apply not to this image, but to the image labeled "Brazil, by Juan Felipe" (click on the title to see that image). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
karcazz.jpg Karcazz (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- that reason is not very useful, however: it is an uploader request. Unused "bad jpeg" cross. Apparently it is / should be a user icon. Delete if no one minds.. --Saibo (Δ) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As this mural is located in Los Angeles and as the U.S. FOP exemption (Commons:FOP#United_States) is valid only for buildings, this image is a copyviolating derivative of the mural by Héctor Ponce. -- Túrelio (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertising for website purpose, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have just contacted Cowparade Holdings to see if they'll grant a free cultural work license. I'll forward to the proper systems on the off-chance I get a positive reply. Neko-chan (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: THe license will almost certainly have to come from the sculptor, not the owner. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it's illegal, then just delete it, why should we discuss about it? (these are not the most crucial photographs for wikipedia either, so it will not affect nor me nor wiki that much, n'est-ce pas). Ziel (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Otourly Captain-tucker (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Per http://www.af.mil/search/imagesearch.asp?q=taurus this is a courtesy photo, likely by Orbital Sciences Corporation, who launches these rockets. WDGraham points out at File talk:Taurus 3210 launching ROCSAT 2.jpg that other sites cite the USAF as the author, but I see no reason to doubt the primary source's statement in favour of a third-party reuser. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is equally possible that the USAF website has made an error, and it does not state who originally provided the image. It is plausible that it could have been "courtesy" of a different part of the USAF, or even that they were uploading a number of "courtesy photos", and copied the caption in error. I just feel that it should be discussed before a decision is taken. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- While possible, I don't see the likelihood of such an error occurring as being very high, and have certainly never seen such a significant credit mislabelling before. In any case, we have to err on the side of caution; hosting copyright violations is unacceptable. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: When in doubt, our policy is to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Image of unremarkable person. Out of scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Image of unremarkable person. Out of scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 04:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
False claim of ownership, image is available on multiple internet sources. And, this is definitely not India, maybe New Zealand. —Bill william comptonTalk 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the person in the image and did not provide my consent for this photo to be taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Private individual, image is not used on any Wikimedia projects, identity claim should be taken in good faith at face value. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This has been closed "keep" on two occasions, but incorrectly. COM:IDENT#Consent requires that "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." There is no indication on the page that anybody ever thought about whether the subject had asserted the necessary consent; and it seems the subject actually asserted the opposite. This file should be deleted, and this should be an easy call, since it is not in use on any Wikimedia projects. Pete F (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- No this file will be kept because the person in question posed for the image = permission. Any other claims, especially those by the initial nominator above, should have gone through OTRS.--Denniss (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The policy quoted above states that the uploader needs to consider whether the photo is "appropriate for uploading to Commons." So even granting that the subject consented to being photographed -- how do we know she consented to anything more than taking a photo to send to her parents? We don't know if this photo was taken in a public or private place, or for what purpose. OTRS would be an excellent tool for asserting that there is consent; but absent anything stated in OTRS, we should err on the side of caution and delete. -Pete F (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page. After I uploaded it she wrote to me saying she did like the image and wanted all that I had uploaded taken down. She had a cold that day and did not like the puffiness under her eyes. I tried to have them deleted but obviously can not make that happen166.137.191.19 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. The subject hasn't consented and the image isn't being used anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.--Andreas JN466 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. According to what 166.137 has said here, it sounds like the subject did grant consent, but later revoked it. Does that change the calculus any? Is such consent revocable? Powers (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are two separate issues: is consent, once given, irrevocable; and did she give it in the first place? The first is a legal question we can't answer. As for the second, she says she didn't, and in the absence of something equivalent to a signed contract, we can only go by her word, which is the ethical thing to do anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think that consent (to publish the file) was ever given -- or at least, we can't be confident it was. Powers, I think the comment from 166.137 was in response to a question I asked of the uploader, Susan Gerbic (it was made about an hour after my talk page note). There seems to be a grammatical problem above, and of course the uploader did not log in, so it's difficult to communicate with them. But my guess is that she left out the word "not" -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "she did like the image and wanted all … taken down." If both were true, the word "but" would typically be used, not "and." To me it seems the most likely explanation is that she meant to say "she did not like the image." (And even if she did like the image, liking it is not the same as consenting to publication.) We are of course now parsing text that is very far from ideal, so I accept that others might interpret it differently. But on the whole, I am not seeing any compelling reason to think the subject of the photo ever consented to publication of the image, and policy tells us that kind of consent is required. -Pete F (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I assumed "did not" was what was meant. But the first sentence: "I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page" implies that the photographer made the purpose of the photograph clear. Perhaps that is not the case. Powers (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, ok -- then, sorry for going off on that tangent. To sum up, then, now that I understand your question better:
- I agree with what Denniss said, that Ms. Stollznow consented to having her photo taken -- that much does seem apparent from the relaxed pose.
- Mere consent to have one's photo taken, though, is not sufficient: the policy says the uploader should consider what is appropriate for uploading to Commons.
- We don't know what understanding there might or might not have been between Ms. Stollznow or Ms. Gerber; we might infer from the IP's statement that Ms. Gerber's intent was to publish the photo here, but we have nothing to suggest it was clearly communicated to (much less agreed to by) Ms. Stollznow.
- It seems to me this new comment does nothing to change the need to delete the photo. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- (p.s. I agree this brings up some really interesting general questions about kinds of consent, and whether they are revokable -- and I'm eager to discuss those, but probably not here, because in this particular case I'm mainly concerned about whether sufficient consent was granted to begin with. Seems better to keep it simple. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
- Ah, ok -- then, sorry for going off on that tangent. To sum up, then, now that I understand your question better:
Goodness! I was responding on my phone and guess I wasn't signed in. What does it take to get a picture once uploaded taken down? These are real human beings we are dealing with and not just policies. The subject and the photographer (uploader) have requested that the image be deleted, this isn't a Rembrandt, but a photo. I take many many photos, which I upload. In this case this person did not like the image. Can we please just take down the image?Sgerbic (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly trending in that direction. But to understand why it's not a simple process, you have to understand what kind of repository we are. Since we're trying to make available images that anyone can use, for any purpose, deciding to revoke access to one of those images has many "downstream" implications. In addition to usage on Wikimedia projects, the files might be in use on other non-Wikimedia wikis (through mw:InstantCommons), or in art projects, or in advertising, or any number of other things. And in most of those cases, we don't know (nor have any way to know) about them. So removing media that is legitimately licensed with a free license causes many problems for re-users of that media. That's not a reason to keep the file, mind you -- but it is a reason to be very reluctant to delete a file just because the uploader changed his/her mind. Powers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sgerbic, did Ms. Stollznow ever initially explicitly agree to broad publication of this photo? It seems from what you've said that she probably didn't, but it might help to move things forward if you could state clearly one way or the other. -Pete F (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- She knew I was taking the image for WP. She did not see it before I uploaded it. Once she saw it she did not like it and asked for it to be removed. I tried to do that but did not understand how. I tried to do it right after uploading it.70.39.176.20 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. In my view this strengthens the case for deletion: it seems there was never strong consent for the upload to begin with (i.e., consent that was grounded in knowing what the image looked like). -Pete F (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- She knew I was taking the image for WP. She did not see it before I uploaded it. Once she saw it she did not like it and asked for it to be removed. I tried to do that but did not understand how. I tried to do it right after uploading it.70.39.176.20 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sgerbic, did Ms. Stollznow ever initially explicitly agree to broad publication of this photo? It seems from what you've said that she probably didn't, but it might help to move things forward if you could state clearly one way or the other. -Pete F (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly trending in that direction. But to understand why it's not a simple process, you have to understand what kind of repository we are. Since we're trying to make available images that anyone can use, for any purpose, deciding to revoke access to one of those images has many "downstream" implications. In addition to usage on Wikimedia projects, the files might be in use on other non-Wikimedia wikis (through mw:InstantCommons), or in art projects, or in advertising, or any number of other things. And in most of those cases, we don't know (nor have any way to know) about them. So removing media that is legitimately licensed with a free license causes many problems for re-users of that media. That's not a reason to keep the file, mind you -- but it is a reason to be very reluctant to delete a file just because the uploader changed his/her mind. Powers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Consent issue, good alternative available, not in use. INeverCry 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the person in this image and did not consent to this phot being taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Private individual, image is not used on any Wikimedia projects, identity claim should be taken in good faith at face value. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There is another file, Karen Stollznow.jpg, with the same subject matter, that the subject herself feels is a better quality picture. This newer file Karen Stollznow 1.jpg is not referenced by anything. So we'd like to request it be deleted for those reasons, and perhaps under the rule it be superseded by the original file (though I am new at this and hope I am wording it correctly). I tried contacting the admin from an earlier delete request (via their talk page), but given the response I don't think my request was clear, and then the admin said they were taking a hiatus until August 6. So I am requesting it here. Rjmail (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Fastily and undeleted by me - no reason to delete a freely licensed image just because the depicted person doesn't like it. --Denniss (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it, but didn't realize that creative commons noncommercial files were not allowed Kangaroopowah 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a good faith mistake. Nice image though, I hope you will consider making commercially-reusable uploads in the future! -Pete F (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Promotional, tryed to use twice in page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casete, out of scope Motopark (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
album-cover presumably copyrighted by band or label, no evidence uploader owns copyright. Fair-use would be out-of-scope on commons. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
album-cover presumably copyrighted by band or label, no evidence uploader owns copyright. Fair-use would be out-of-scope on commons. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Most probably copyvio (look at: http://www.batesasia.com/ ) Leafnode✉ 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As stated in the linked website disclaimer "Information at this site is provided solely for the user's information". This does not release images into the public domain, and does not allow the website's information to be distributed commercially. 117Avenue (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope and copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
not taken by uploader, old picture from? newspaper ? unknowed source --MGuf (d) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this image is the own work of the uploader: there are no valid EXIF information and the image resolution is a typical web image size High Contrast (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is the own work of the uploader: there are no valid EXIF information and the image resolution is a typical web image size High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
May not pass the test to be copyrightable but as it is unused then the precautionary principle should be applied. QU TalkQu 09:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrited art, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the problem with my picture ? Roman.b (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- L'auteur de l'escargot ne l'a pas mis sous licence libre, la photo est un travail dérivé, ce n'est pas accepté sur Commons. L'alternative à la suppression est la communication par l'artiste qu'il met cette œuvre sous licence libre... voir Commons:Œuvre dérivée.
- Author didn't put his work under free licence, picture is derivated work, only way to keep the file is the author send authorisation to put his work under free licence. See Commons:Derivative works. ----MGuf (d) 08:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the problem with my picture ? Roman.b (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP in France Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copy of copyrited paper --MGuf (d) 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of an unidentified individual. Appears to be a personal image, no educational value QU TalkQu 10:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of an unidentified individual. No educational value. QU TalkQu 10:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, poor image quality, individuals unidentified, no educational value. Also, appears to be in a private location and no permission from other subjects QU TalkQu 10:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't see why this is PD-OLD, it doesn't seem to be a statue. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It says "2001" on the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
If you can read it, it is just text and so outside of Commons scope. Can't read it well enough to confirm the content but it looks non educational too QU TalkQu 10:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
out of line/scope -- Commons is really no private photo album 80.187.96.13 11:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Subject is notable, see Chris Daw but image published here http://wwwchrisdawca.blogspot.com/. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Description is clearly notable person, see Cat and WP:EN Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted building, no FOP in France (to be uploaded on wp:fr) --MGuf (d) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solely for advertising purpose. The article featuring this image on zh has deleted because of spam. See zh:大宏 (apologies for being in Chinese only). Lakokat (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No License Joe Mathe (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Not proper license Joe Mathe (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific please? --Leyo 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as chemically incorrect: bad ring conformation, bad geometry on every carbon atom, and H/H vdW collision. Nom rationale is not valid: the underlying data is a chemical fact of nature ({{PD-chem}} for what the chemical is) and uploader had asserted a free license, which is not revokable to the extent of his licensable contribution derived from the free facts. But also, nom is uploader, so no objection to self-nom for deletion as unused or superceded or nonuseful or somesuch (speedy G7). DMacks (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks: misleading, this molecule certainly isn't planar. Perditax (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 08:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Book cover from 1960, copright not clear Funfood ␌ 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Unknown person, single upload, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
False copyright note and false description. The image is taken from the website of a Georgian dance group, and depicts the group during a tour of America. See http://www.barynya.com/gd/photo.htm The same uploader has stolen a mumber of images from the same site and placed them on Commons under the description of "Tanci-musica" and described them as Azeri dancers. Meowy (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This movie is still copyrighted in Germany: director Fritz Lang died in 1976. Commons licensing policy requires media to be free in the US and in the country of origin (here: Germany). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertising business card, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No indication of source for photographs making up the collage, CC license implausible... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, probably copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Claim of "own work" not credible. Almost certainly a copyright image. Sadly the porn filter at work prevents me verifying this right now! QU TalkQu 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The file is copied from http://www.virtualani.org/arter/index.htm. MikaelF (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The file is copied from http://www.virtualani.org/arter/index.htm. MikaelF (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission - uploader isn't source, yet is claiming a self license Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- See also en:File:Plopilor_Vest.jpg
All the pictures uploaded by me, were stated in an email from bogdan.dico@dicositiganas.ro to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' and to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' in which he says that all these pictures have the companies permission to be on wikipedia... They are also to be seen and downloaded from the companies facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/dicositiganas
- Two points:
- Has this email been passed to WP:OTRS? If so, there should be an OTRS ticket number that can be displayed on the uploads with a template.
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia. Media uploaded here must be freely licenced for anyone to use it, not just "permission to be on Wikipedia". It's still possible that these images can be licensed for use on Wikipedia and in their article, but aren't acceptably licensed for Commons.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two points:
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope COM:PS AtelierMonpli (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Nearly unreadable diagram, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
See DB here: To make it short: original research, no sources, copyright? Yikrazuul (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, uploaded under a free-use license, with attribution to sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest we wait until the other DB was decided since they are linked. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is a DB? --Saibo (Δ) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest we wait until the other DB was decided since they are linked. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - even if Rama's frame is a copyvio, this is by a different person and we may assume the licence is correct for the frame that person made. We don't give a flying fuck about original research or sources on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment On commons we are only concerned with two main things -- copyright and whether it is in scope. Original research and the like is allowed; this is not wikipedia. As per User_talk:Russavia#Images_are_not_.22missing_permission.22 there is concerns that the copyright on this image may not be properly ascertained, and there is an OTRS "no permission" tag on the image. Note, that OTRS permission and an image being within scope are separate issues, and one must not affect the other. Whilst there is no permission, this discussion should concern itself only with whether the image is in within scope. russavia (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural keep in order to process the OTRS missing permission russavia (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
banner - out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, see source Gumruch (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork Honza chodec (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
poster for some convention, not usable, out of scope Honza chodec (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
personal photo Honza chodec (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
temporary file, not used anymore Honza chodec (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not needed now George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyrighted image, but I can't find a source online. The watermark also makes me wonder. Albacore (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some hits: http://www.tineye.com/search/61723a31079d241e46bb4ed9b5a40666cbfce710/?sort=size&order=desc. --Túrelio (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely a copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
not usefull banner Honza chodec (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - all rights reserved, per http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=46253&what=species . the CC-BY indication on the page with the smaller thumbnail appears to apply not to this image, but to the image labeled "Brazil, by Juan Felipe" (click on the title to see that image). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
karcazz.jpg Karcazz (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- that reason is not very useful, however: it is an uploader request. Unused "bad jpeg" cross. Apparently it is / should be a user icon. Delete if no one minds.. --Saibo (Δ) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As this mural is located in Los Angeles and as the U.S. FOP exemption (Commons:FOP#United_States) is valid only for buildings, this image is a copyviolating derivative of the mural by Héctor Ponce. -- Túrelio (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 03:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete, good photo of a film projector in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The following file is a duplicate of this file. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following file is a duplicate of this file. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following file is a duplicate of this file. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The following file is a duplicate of this file. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 10:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio --obviously from here: http://dooku.miun.se/ake.johansson/ --80.187.96.13
- User:Iin208 who created this file is a user for Åke Johannson.Yger (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But this requires verification via OTRS, as the website is "© MCMXCVIII - MMXII Åke Johansson". --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please give us time to resolve this issue.Yger (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure; per the no-permission-tag you have at least 7 days from now per default. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please give us time to resolve this issue.Yger (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But this requires verification via OTRS, as the website is "© MCMXCVIII - MMXII Åke Johansson". --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - used on the deleted page Roberto Cavagnoli. Though the action is probably within scope; I'm not sure. Any thoughts? Trijnstel (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it was upload to be used on a promotional page on it.wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
No date of death of author known since he is "unknown". No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production "before 1901" - but this is not sufficient. Example: author's age 30. Died at 80 years: 1951. That would be only 60 years ago but at least 70 is needed. Saibo (Δ) 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Licence changed to {{PD-1923}}. The photograph ist from a reliable source, Clendening Library Portrait Collection of the University of Kansas Medical Center: The Clendening has acquired more than 500 portraits of physicians and scientists in its fifty-five year history. The sources of the portraits are largely unknown and, as such, there may be copyright violations of which the University of Kansas Medical Center is unaware. They will gladly amend the site accordingly if copyright can be established.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment (note that I collapsed the copyright template here in your comment). From which country is that portrait (photo?)? His nationality suggests that this portrait is made in Germany, isn't it? If the source country is Germany the {{PD-1923}} is not enough to keep it on Commons (read the template's text). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to [1], the photographer was Julius Wilhelm Hornung (German, 1861-1929). PD in Germany today. Copyright status in the U.S. unknown; strictly speaking it's only PD-1923 if indeed evidence for a publication before 1923 can be found, though such pre-1923 publication is quite likely for someone who died already in 1901. Lupo 13:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lupo, for confirming the photographer. Deletion request removed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to [1], the photographer was Julius Wilhelm Hornung (German, 1861-1929). PD in Germany today. Copyright status in the U.S. unknown; strictly speaking it's only PD-1923 if indeed evidence for a publication before 1923 can be found, though such pre-1923 publication is quite likely for someone who died already in 1901. Lupo 13:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment (note that I collapsed the copyright template here in your comment). From which country is that portrait (photo?)? His nationality suggests that this portrait is made in Germany, isn't it? If the source country is Germany the {{PD-1923}} is not enough to keep it on Commons (read the template's text). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
no educational use possible, highly unlikely to be used artistically Funfood ␌ 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Comment: Speedy request here: [[2]]--Funfood ␌ 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Moved from speedy to DR because no obvious copvio. I can see no reason for a deletion, educational value is given.--Funfood ␌ 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - a better description would help. I added a basic one from what I think it is, and some categories. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This seems a weird DR, obviously in scope to my eyes and I can envisage many types of educational use for such a photograph. I think the speedy could have been rejected without going to the cost of a DR unless someone was bitterly complaining for some reason worth considering. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
digital picture of a old fashioned picture, no real source, big doubts, (lot of other copyvio by uploader) --MGuf (d) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
copy from http://www.beaucourt.com/ , no author, no proof PD --MGuf (d) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
not taken by uploader, unknowed author, cvopy from unknowed source (newspaper ?) --MGuf (d) 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Probeble copyvio. en:User:Halfalive was habitual offender. By the way which one is the original image ? Takabeg (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete This image might have been taken from the official website of the Turkish State Railways (cf. The Turkish State Railways, wowturkey.com) Takabeg (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
NHL and AHL images from Bridget Samuels
[edit]- Reasons for deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg In the original request it only specifically mentions NHL and AHL, however there are ECHL and NBA images that I do not know if they run afoul of the same issue, as such I have only listed the NHL and AHL versions here. Some of these images might be involved on another deletion page. A few of the images were recently put up for deletion and when I realized there were a lot more I attempted to find all of them. I tried to compare the list to other deletion requests but still some may be involved in on of the others --Leech44 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfortunately we have discussed this at length before and concluded that we cannot keep Samuels's work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that I have tried once to delete all of the files in the list, but DelReqHandler is acting up again. Some of them have been deleted, but still show up as blue links, others have not been deleted. I will check back later to insure that all get deleted. 
Done Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Sudhirdalai
[edit]- File:Sudhirkumar (31).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (16).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (29).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (28).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (26).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (25).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (22).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (23).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (19).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (17).jpg
- File:Sudhirkumar (20).jpg
- File:Sudhir .JPG
- File:Copy of 100 2063.JPG
- File:Safari (1).jpg
Most files are self-created artworks and derivative works of probably non-free images. The other are private images, hence out of scope. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
3sathdlogo.gif Freak222 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently, 3sat HD doesn't exist at all. 84.61.139.62 08:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, no reason valid to delete it Ezarateesteban 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect logo. Correct logo: File:3sat HD.svg. Therefore, it fails COM:SCOPE. 84.61.167.13 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Already gone --Denniss (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Bayerisches_Fernsehen_HD.gif Freak222 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a reason. Fry1989 eh? 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently, BR HD doesn't exist at all. 84.61.139.62 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: see above Ezarateesteban 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably has a false copyright tag and is not the uploaders "own work". It is obviously a part of a painting and appears to be a 19th-century one. The uploader has placed a number of drawn or painted artworks on commons, all of them different in their artistic style and period, making it impossible that they are painted by the uploader. Meowy (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Work of Grigory Gagarin see File:Gagarin. Bakou. Ateseh-Gah, Indiens adonnes au culte du feu.jpg Geagea (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Lower quality image than File:Gagarin. Bakou. Ateseh-Gah, Indiens adonnes au culte du feu.jpg. I have replaced this file with the higher quality file on every page in the project which will let me, there are three still to go which would not let me make changes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept. Lower resolution but not necessarily lower quality. In use. No reason to delete. --Krd 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
because it is not uploaded correctly Imranchaudry (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 23:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation as the image has clearly been cropped from there. The article has been published earlier than the date of upload. No EXIF data either. Lovy Singhal (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This uploader appears to be lying. On uploading several image without any evidence of permission and constantly removing deletion notices to the enwiki, this image was uploaded there as en:File:DTP Logo.jpg but with a different author from the claim here that it is his own work. Ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW. No author. 77.184.138.235 06:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyrited, no fair use on Commons, perhaps for wp:fr --MGuf (d) 09:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
screen capture, copyrited logo, perhaps for wp:fr --MGuf (d) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not of sufficient quality and is disputed. Argentium (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:Dublin four courts.JPG, although this bot-uploaded image seems to be cropped slightly. This is why I opened a dr rather than nominate it as a duplicate. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image is distorted compared to the PNG version Namayan (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image was just a test design the chapter didn't use Namayan (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo was a test design the chapter didn't use Namayan (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo was a test design the chapter didn't use Namayan (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo was a test design the chapter didn't use Namayan (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo was test design the chapter didn't use. Philippine label, not properly centered Namayan (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It has probably got a false copyright tag and is not actually the uploaders own work. It is a cropped version of a larger image. See http://www.okhtai.blogfa.com/8705.aspx Meowy (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Description implies this is a screenshot from one of the Trancers films. January (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a poster which is likely to be copyrighted. Neither covered by FoP nor by de minimis. A.Savin 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a modern sculpture (created after 1945, those the sculptor cannot have been died more than 70 years ago). No FoP in Russia and copyrighted in the U.S. as well. A.Savin 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclear if uploader owns logo rights, description like a wikipedia article not suitable on commons. Funfood ␌ 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A number of images contributed by the uploader of this image appear suspect. This particular image is also used on the cover of a video cd (http://www.ottomanstore.com/switch.php?file=ProductInfo&cat_id=124&product_id=858) so it is unlikely to be a photograph that could be released as public domain. The low resolution and colour tint of the Commons version also makes one suspect it is scanned from a printed version and is not the uploaders own work. Meowy (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Image source notes it is copyrighted. See source. While it does state usage restrictions as "none", it does not explicitly release the image under a free license, making it incompatible with Commons. -- Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.139.62 10:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC) condition in COM:FOP#France:
- "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966)
But this is part of a series (housing development) -> Keep! --Arch2all (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Original enough to attract copyright protection, no freedom of panorama in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No source, OTRS ticket seems fake Funfood ␌ 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- the ticket is fake, indeed (ticket number 00000000 is not very useful). However, we could keep that with {{PD-textlogo}} (below TOO) instead of the license tags if that logo is not out of scope anyway (don't know) A quick google images search suggests that this is a logo of some small political group. Tend to Delete therefore... --Saibo (Δ) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom for unused file. Badseed talk 17:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
_Dotted_surface_3D_Model.PNG){kind=link}
_Space_filling_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ball_and_stick_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Dotted_surface_3D_Model.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Dotted_surface_3D_Model.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Dotted_surface_3D_Model.PNG){kind=link}
_Dotted_surface_3D_Model.PNG){kind=link}
_Space_filling_3D_model.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Space_filling_3D_model.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Space_filling_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
_Space_filling_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ball_and_stick_3D_model.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Ball_and_stick_3D_model.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Ball_and_stick_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
_Ball_and_stick_3D_model.PNG){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACuero_crudo.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=66997442&oldid=42367100){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
None of the {{PD-UA-exempt}} exemptions apply (this is not news facts, folklore, statute, a state symbol, bank note or unoriginal data), and this is not the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo was scanned by me personally. Original gave me a man pictured in this photo for posting on the college site. This image is a public person, who heads the state institution. Now this image available on the pages http://kk.nau.edu.ua/index.php?page=adminis and http://krauss.in.ua/index/0-5. - Igor1409 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Scanning a photo created by someone else does not make it your own work. The fact that the subject is a public person does not affect the copyright of the photo. The fact that the photo has been published elsewhere also does not mean that it's not protected by copyright. For Commons to host this file, the photographer needs to agree to a free license (allowing anyone to use the photo for any purpose) or to place the photo in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have information about this work is protected by copyright? This photo is not copyrighted. Photographer unknown. Also look at http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Andrusevich.jpg - Igor1409 17:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unless there is information indicating otherwise, all creative works are assumed to be protected by copyright. Why do you say that this photo isn't? It is up to you as the uploader to provide verifiable information showing that what you upload is not protected by copyright (or that it is published under a free license). The fact that you don't know who the photographer is does not mean that it isn't protected by copyright. The Ukranian Wikipedia project should not be accepting content without a license or fair use claim. Doing so is in breach of the Wikimedia Foundation's global licensing policy. It is, however, not up to Commons to enforce the Wikimedia Foundation's global policies on other projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Licensing status unknown. And since it seems to be a recent photo, it is probably still protected by copyright. uk:Файл:Andrusevich.jpg should probably also be deleted per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy (I'm guessing that User:LX linked to the wrong project). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. File in the article is replaced by a photo made by me. - Igor1409 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It's not photo "made" by you (where "made" = "scanned") that is needed it's photo taken by you.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Does not fall under PD-UA-exempt Anatoliy (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No indication this was released under a free license. Online before at http://www.architizer.com/en_us/projects/pictures/the-chihuly-collection-at-the-morean-arts-center/12107/91675/ (all of this user's uploads are suspect) Sven Manguard (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This image, and all on the page were provided by the photographer Al Hurley, an associate of Alberto Alfonso, who works in his office. Please note that the image was uploaded at 300ppi which would not have been possible had I taken it off the web. He was the original photographer who provided to Architzer. ALL images were provided with permission to use for Wikipedia: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
You may contact him if you suspect: creator/author Al Hurley job title photographer address Alfonso Architects 1705 N. 16th St. Tampa, FL 33605 phone 813.927.1124 email Al Hurley <ahurley3@tampabay.rr.com> website http://www.imagesbyalhurley.com/ImagesByAlHurley/Welcome.html
Please let me know what other information you requireMacgirlpro (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the photographer in question, and I'm confirming that I own the copyright to the photos and have allowed them to be used on this wiki page and on architizer.
Thank you,
Al Hurley Alfonso Architects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeflutie (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - high-resolution version, not taken from the web. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted
Per Macgirlpro:
- “ALL images were provided with permission to use for Wikipedia: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License”
That’s unacceptable for three reasons: NC, ND, and Wikipedia only.
Per Spikeflutie, who says he is the photographer,
- “[I] have allowed them to be used on this wiki page and on architizer.”
That’s also unacceptable, as permission for wiki is not enough, we require explicit permission for commercial use and derivatives.
However, the more important factor is that the image shows three copyrighted works of art. As is clear from the title, they are the reason for the image being here. Therefore the image infringes on Chihuly’s copyrights.
In order to restore this, we will need permission from Dale Chihuly and Al Hurley using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
copyrited picture, no fair use alowed on Commons, perhaps for wp:fr --MGuf (d) 09:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : [3] [4] (and there is no fair use for coat of arms at wp:fr, only for logos). Bloody-libu (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.datapressepremium.com/rmdiff_word/2007111/images/20anstranscal20113.013.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No date of death of author known since he is "unknown". No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production "before 1905" - but this is not sufficient. Example: author's age 30. Died at 80 years: 1955. That would be only 56 years ago but at least 70 is needed. Saibo (Δ) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Saibo, why not target Mattbuck? Because he is a power admin? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, only a "!vote"? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You know that I refer to for example this 1916 photo. You are accepting that one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, only a "!vote"? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- For what i know, this photo is a part of legacy of Louis Mantin, within his house, who is currently owned by the town of Moulins, so even if there's not 70 years, it's public heritage and can be used like a "droit de citation". Feel free to contact Musée Anne de Beaujeu for more information ( mab@cg03.fr ) --Silex (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Logo from other source in better resolution in internet, eg here http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150528536297738&set=a.10150102111762738.317318.391077527737&type=3&theater Funfood ␌ 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Better resolution elsewhere isn't really a reason to delete something. Perhaps that this is the Tory Tree logo of the UK Conservatives is. 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely pd-old-100 if the only known fact is "vor 1908" (before 1908). Saibo (Δ) 17:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Saibo, I am still waiting for you to target Mattbuck's uploads. You are such a coward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, may it be that you confused this deletion request discussion with some chat on a party (just the !vote is a bit misplaced)? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You know that I refer to for example this 1916 photo. You are acceting that one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is the relation of the photo you've linked to to this one here? --Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- This photo was published in the NY Times in 1916, so {{PD-1923}}; sitter's dates are 1829-1903; this is a standard studio portrait, without many creative choices by the photographer. Yet you choose to target this one, instead of a historic photo from 1916 with a unique perspective. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is the relation of the photo you've linked to to this one here? --Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You know that I refer to for example this 1916 photo. You are acceting that one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, may it be that you confused this deletion request discussion with some chat on a party (just the !vote is a bit misplaced)? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
PD-old-100 is obviously wrong since no author is known. PD-old-100 requires the author to be dead for more than 100 years. Saibo (Δ) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Saibo, Mattbuck has some uploads that are more recent than this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, only a "!vote"? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You know that I refer to for example this 1916 photo. You are accepting that one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, only a "!vote"? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No date of death of author known since he is "Anonym". No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production "vor 1905" - but this is not sufficient. Example: author's age 30. Died at 80 years: 1955. That would be only 56 years ago but at least 70 is needed. Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Saibo, I am just saying Mattbuck's Spanish flu patients... you still have not nominated those. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter, only a "!vote" and some off topic comment? You are very very welcome to dig out a author. --Saibo (Δ) 21:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Film still of a work by en:Fritz Lang (en:Die Nibelungen, Germany 1924). Camera: en:Carl Hoffman and en:Günther Rittau and en:Walter Ruttmann Is this PD today? --78.55.159.126 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.flickr.com/photos/10655856@N04/3365197434/ (no author disclosure). However, claims of authorship in infobox, licensing, and categorization must be changed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have changed all of the description I could get. So somebody might close this case 78.55.159.126 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Julo (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
PD tag does not apply: Description clearly indicates, that author/publisher information was given on postcard, so this is not anonymous. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - publisher information only -> anonymous photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photographer has likely given all rights on the photograph to the publisher. Just the fact that the publisher chooses not to print the photographer's name on the postcards doesn't make this an anonymous work. The publisher needs to at least be contacted regarding the copyright situation or research has to be done to find out who inherited the publisher's rights. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The publisher is long time defunct, and it don't need to be contacted. If the author didn't disclosed their identity during 70 years after publication, it's free, even if the author will be identified later. See the text on the template. Trycatch (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- At least the back of the card should be checked, to see whether a photographer is being mentioned. We cannot simply assume anonymous just because a website does not list the photographer's name. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/10655856@N04/3365197434/ shows that the info is on the front of the card. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- At least the back of the card should be checked, to see whether a photographer is being mentioned. We cannot simply assume anonymous just because a website does not list the photographer's name. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The publisher is long time defunct, and it don't need to be contacted. If the author didn't disclosed their identity during 70 years after publication, it's free, even if the author will be identified later. See the text on the template. Trycatch (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photographer has likely given all rights on the photograph to the publisher. Just the fact that the publisher chooses not to print the photographer's name on the postcards doesn't make this an anonymous work. The publisher needs to at least be contacted regarding the copyright situation or research has to be done to find out who inherited the publisher's rights. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Trycatch (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Stalin bust by Nikolai Tomsky
[edit]Derivative of a 1970 sculpture by Nikolai Tomsky who died in 1984. No FoP in Russia, additionally no FoP for sculptures in the U.S. May be undeleted after 2054 or if FoP for artwork should get allowed both in Russia and in the U.S.
A.Savin 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- На первом фото основным объектом скорее является ёлка чем памятник. Памятник в углу внизу.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Вряд ли кадр был вырезан из этого файла ради елки. Оригинал под DM, но вырезать оттуда что-либо содержащее скульптуры я бы не стал. Да и кому нужна картинка елки столь непотребного качества? - A.Savin 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Main object is the tree? You can't be serious. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - though this photo appears on a government website, the sculpture is unlikely to be the work of a government employee. toni wirts's linkedin describes her as "self-employed"[5] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The source link in the article is not working but this archive version makes it clear that the artist was on contract with the NPS when the models were made. As for the Linkedin profile, I only see her current status, that is a big jump to assuming that the standard NPS policy of images being public domain "unless otherwise indicated" does not apply. As there is no statement against these images of some other copyright status, then the standard website policy should apply. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Works produced by contractors are copyright protected.[6] She would have to have been an employee, which seems unlikely. Anyways nothing on the page you linked to indicates that she was engaged even as a contractor for the government. More likely, she just gave them permission to display her work and/or use it on their website. When a work is clearly produced by a third party, it is reasonable to apply good judgment and see that the general policy does not apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Heilbronn, Altes Rathaus vor 4.12.44, Neue Kanzlei, Wandgemälde des Künstlers Amberg aus dem Atelier Peter Bruckmann vor dem Trauzimmer.jpg
[edit]
No date of death of author known since he is "unknown". No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production "1905" - but this is not sufficient. Example: author's age 30. Died at 80 years: 1955. That would be only 56 years ago but at least 70 is needed. Saibo (Δ) 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Adolph Amberg died 1913 - it was not so difficult to look that up. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)<br\>@User:Pieter Kuiper :-) --Messina (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was not given. However, that is only for the work shown - what about the photograph? Otherwise we could remove everyting but the 2D painting and claim PD-Art. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 01:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)<br\>@User:Saibo Sorry--Messina (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Saibo: If the exhibition catalogue did not give information about the photographer, he is likely unknown. And that is of course because there is no originality, it is not a work, just a Lichtbild, protection has expired long ago. Please stop your crusade. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- We do not use the hard distinction between Lichtbild and Lichtbildwerk. "Please stop your" personal comments at me. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Saibo: If the exhibition catalogue did not give information about the photographer, he is likely unknown. And that is of course because there is no originality, it is not a work, just a Lichtbild, protection has expired long ago. Please stop your crusade. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was not given. However, that is only for the work shown - what about the photograph? Otherwise we could remove everyting but the 2D painting and claim PD-Art. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 01:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)<br\>@User:Saibo Sorry--Messina (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment As far as I know, all those 1905 images of the Heilbronn town hall (there are about three dozen) come from a book, or rather a loose-leaf collection of oversized photographs in a folder (a portfolio), published in 1905 or 1906 by the publisher Wittwer in Stuttgart. The title is Das Rathaus in Heilbronn a. N., a further bibliographic information is unter Mitwirkung der Stadtverwaltung veröffentlicht von H. Jassoy. You can look it up in German library catalogues using KVK. Heinrich Jassoy was an architect responsible for renovating the Heilbronn town hall from 1897 to 1906; he died in 1939. I don't know if he is the actual photographer of those images, however. Somebody would have to take a look at the original publication and find out if there is any information about the photographer, there is supposedly a preface by someone named Dürr, probably Friedrich Dürr, a teacher and historian from Heilbronn. I myself so far haven't seen the 1905 publication and right now I don't have access to it either. --Rosenzweig τ 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 23:26, 9 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)