Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Personal image, unused, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 00:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It appears MichelleTaylorr (talk · contribs) has a habit of uploading copyright violations. This particular image, based on finding this source, appears to have been taken from Ms. Hudgens' Instagram feed and would be her copyright, not MichelleTaylorr's. — Fourthords | =/\= | 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio ■ MMXX talk 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy; the source page says the images have "public access" and can be used as long as credits are intact. No clear indication about commercial reuse and modifications. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The image is derivative of another image which was previously uploaded with false copyright info (recent image was passed off as PD-old) FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would have deleted it last night if it was a more recent image, but 2006 would at least deserve some kind of consideration and public oversight. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I should probably explain further. This image was taken from here:[1] But the images on that site are based on images from another site[2], which does not have a free license. Therefore, the derivatives are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would have deleted it last night if it was a more recent image, but 2006 would at least deserve some kind of consideration and public oversight. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
While our uploader has the same Username as the artist, we will need a license using Commons:OTRS to confirm that he is actually the same person. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC) There is no copyright issue. I uploaded the image; I am the author of the photograph and of the images it depicts. The licence has been sent by e-mail.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom -- OTRS received Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly possible that if User:Manuelvbotelho is in fact the artist Manuel Botelho, born 1950, then this could be "Own Work". Howver, he made the same claim about a 1957 image of Carlos Botelho, so I am skeptical of this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom per discussion at User_talk:Manuelvbotelho#Copyright_issues Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Files are no longer called images Ian Streeter (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The fact the namespace “File” is no longer called “Image” (by default) does not make e.g. File:Example.jpg any less an image. But that is not important at all. There are ca 300 incoming links to this page. As soon as you (or anyone else) fix them, there is no reason to keep the page. Until then, there is no reason to delete it. Mormegil (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Concur with disputed-chem tag: charge or N-count is chemically incorrect. Replaceable by File:Betain-Alanin.png DMacks (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There is File:Betain-Alanin.png as a correct alternative. --Leyo 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed upon. --134.106.214.75 15:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed upon. --Jue (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion; uploader agreed. Leyo 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Converted from speedy; pd-simple anyone? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I understand that, but is this logo too simple for copyright is what I am asking. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand something, but this logo isn't free. And the author of this logo isn't BOBKA. The same logo on enwiki.--Skazi (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that, but is this logo too simple for copyright is what I am asking. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted logo User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright. Ileana n (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 04:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 04:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola1.htm that has copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen image from http://holayola.bravehost.com/yola3.htm that has Copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Techman224Talk 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
sourced to random website with copyright notice Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Kobac (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Herbythyme Captain-tucker (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No imagined used for this kind of photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Stolen from http://steamcommunity.com/id/dodgydeath/stats/L4D2?tab=stats&subtab=versus Ileana n (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of that there sculpture. No indication that the sculpture is PD or otherwise freely licensed GrapedApe (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP for artwork in the US Captain-tucker (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by equivalent SVG image. No other wikis used. --Wrightbus (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Axpde Captain-tucker (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. This photo is published in 2009 on a large number of sites. Can be found by request "the "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs", aka "3 Guys 1 hammer" as they are in the court" in Google, for example. Art-top (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no explanation of source and with plenty of pre-existing versions appearing on a TinEye search, the precautionary principle applies. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I would like to delete this picture due to privacy concerns. Method5 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you upload this curved penis? Kobac (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it for the peyronie's disease article. Due to concerns about privacy, I want it removed ASAP. Is this "speedy deletion"?
Deleted: Deleted by Geni Captain-tucker (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Author not known and picture from 1951, can't be free licensed. Funfood ␌ 07:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete virtually useless at this resolution -- Liliana-60 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe this media is out of scope. The file is not used and the person photographed is likely to be unnotable. (Notable for being a member of a Baptist congregation?) 90.190.114.172 07:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not against deletion. Avjoska (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete With no context and unused this falls out of scope. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
From unreliable Flickr source. Same Flickr stream also has [3], which in reality is a commercial AFP image [4]. Likely copyright violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://appropriateprojects.com/taxonomy/term/14?page=1 Captain-tucker (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
collage of multiple, likely non-free, photographs of undisclosed source, unlikely to be fully own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
collage of multiple, likely non-free, photographs of undisclosed source, unlikely to be fully own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, obviously a screenshot from some video, of unknown source. Likely copyvio; same uploader has multiple other derivative works falsely claimed as "own work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, likely screenshot from some video or photograph of another photo, of unknown source. Likely copyvio; same uploader has multiple other derivative works falsely claimed as "own work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, obviously a photo of another photo, of unknown authorship. Likely copyvio; same uploader has multiple other derivative works falsely claimed as "own work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded as test trying to help another user, didn't back out of the wizard in time. The file is a low quality, blurry image that is unlikely to be of use to other people. Wctaiwan (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Small low-resolution raster image, doesn't scale well; easily replaceable by high-res File:L-alanine-skeletal.png in same format or File:L-alanine-skeletal.svg DMacks (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and unneeded considering there are many other higher quality equivalents. Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No coppyright information provided. Image has not been released under an applicable license or at least nog mentioned in the source provided, nor has any OTRS information been provided. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No educational content. GeorgHH • talk 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No educational content. GeorgHH • talk 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Not used photo of "wikipedian" without edits in Wikipedia. Kobac (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the wrong file from my file system, please delete Willemnabuurs (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright has been disputed for some time and there has been no resolution. Was first raised at VP. Sitush (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- VP discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/01#File:Tall_Betsy.jpg - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
As described here "The sale of RFE/RL content, however, is strictly prohibited." So it cannot be used in commons. --Guzelonlu (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non Free license Captain-tucker (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio all pictures by Alain B on Picasa with the same logo are private and "all rights reserved"see [5] and [6] Traumrune (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Used, but definitely out of scope GrapedApe (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Just three text lines in spanish, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Trijnstel (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Private image. unused. GeorgHH • talk 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Used for fake and vandalic article at eswiki, out of project scope. Jcaraballo 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
File apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Used in attempts to vandalise Wikipedia page en:Bidford-on-Avon. Also failure to attribute the copyright of the owner of image File:Bidford on Avon - geograph.org.uk - 41362.jpg, on which this montage is clearly based, under the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/adilcevaz/index.htm (photograph 3). Meowy (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. copyvio from http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.virtualani.org/adilcevaz/adilcevas_tr_pic1s.jpg Blackcat (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag: it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/adilcevaz/index.htm (photograph 8). Meowy (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Compare with this... uploader changed background but is clearly the same image. -- Blackcat (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Blackcat (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag, it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/adilcevaz/index.htm (photograph 9) Meowy (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. the file has been in use on the abovementioned site since 2006 Blackcat (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
NO FoP in France : this church was built between 1949 to 1951.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerHotline (talk • contribs) 2012-01-25T11:49:15 (UTC) Saibo (Δ) 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please make DRs for noFOP cases. --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- restored de:Datei:Audincourt Sacré-Cœur Außenansicht.jpg (which was the original source). --Saibo (Δ) 17:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo —Andrei S. Talk 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, deletion request withdrawn. See OTRS message. Image is CC-BY-SA.—Andrei S. Talk 09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission |EPO| da: 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
why is this PD? it's a color photograph so likely not 70 years pma and there doesn't seem to be any other reason Liliana-60 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Facts and daily news. It consists of facts or daily news that serves as a basis for press information — it's photo from sport-magazine from 1972 till 1977. --Dnikitin (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily. That means plain facts, no interpretation, and is (unless Hungarian jurisprudence was very peculiar) in virtually all cases limited to text. Things like brief news agency items. It does not apply to whole articles written e.g. for a newspaper, and it does not apply to photos. Photos almost always fail the "plain facts" test because they nearly always include enough originality by the photographer. As is the case in this particular photo. Lupo 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Converted from speedy; this person died in 1937, but there is no indication of date of publication or anything about this photo so there is no certainty we can keep this image without that information. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Was this image really filmed from Switzerland? There is no COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piazza Indipendenza 2.JPG the picture has been taken from Swiss side of the border. Jeriby (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Was this image really filmed from Switzerland? There is no COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 13:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piazza Indipendenza 2.JPG the picture has been taken from Swiss side of the border. Jeriby (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Was this image really filmed from Switzerland? There is no COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 13:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I checked that (very easy to check with Google Street View, you could have checked that yourself before starting this DR), and the picture was indeed taken from Switzerland. Jeriby (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Unhelpful images being used by a sockpuppeteer to spam enwiki. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The image file doesn't have any educational value. It is not currently being used in any of the projects. Only for vandalism on the page Bidsar on en.wiki. The filename is misleading too as Bidsar is the name of a village in India and this image in no way represents it. Lovy Singhal (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Unencyclopedic. This image doesn't depict any unique architectural design.—Bill william comptonTalk 13:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence that this image is an original work of the US Federal Government. Therefore, no clear proof given that it is in the public domain 80.187.96.218 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Use the wayback machine and you will see the image was on the DOT website. This is clearly the secretary's official photo. Like all other official photos, it is a work of the federal government and should be retained as PD-USGov. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Official photo of the US Gov. Steinbeisser (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong licence, author (1875-1960) is not yet 70 years dead FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
No need for different resolutions. See superior file at File:WIndows 8 logo.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Superior format version at File:WIndows 8 logo.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, likely screenshot from some video, of unknown source. Likely copyvio; same uploader has multiple other derivative works falsely claimed as "own work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Small size, no exif -- this user uses a Nokia phone for his own work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably copvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Krystyna Matuschowitz, amateur painter from Poland
[edit]I think that these images are out of project scope.
- File:Landschaft Krismat.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat K.Matuschowitz,akwarela.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Peiting, Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz akwarela.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Krismat akwarela,aquarelle.JPG
- File:Krismat Kon.JPG
- File:Krismat Ptak.JPG
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna.jpg
- File:Krismat Krystyna M.jpg
- File:Akwarel,Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat K.M.jpg
- File:Akwarela,kredki Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Akwarela,Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna M.jpg
- File:Akwarela Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat K.jpg
- File:Akwarel Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarelki Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Blumen Krismat obrazy.jpg
- File:Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela aquarelle, Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat rysunek Krystyna Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Krismat akwarelka Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat pastelle suche Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat aquarelle Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarele Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela.JPG
- File:Akryl.jpg
- File:Akwarela kredki Krismat.JPG
- File:Mischung Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela.jpg
- File:Olejne Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele Krismat.jpg
- File:Krismat.jpg
- File:Mischung, farby mieszane Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela, pastele Krismat.jpg
- File:Pastele suche Krismat.jpg
- File:Aquarelle,akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Obrazy olejne Krismat.jpg
- File:Mischung, Peiting Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele,aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Obraz olejny Krismat.jpg
- File:Peoting, akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Peiting Krismat.jpg
- File:Akryl,ackryl Krismat.jpg
Kobac (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Peiting aquarelle.jpg
- File:Rysunki www.krismat.eu.JPG
- File:Akwarele Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarele krismat.jpg
- File:Alwarela.JPG
- File:Akwarela,krismat.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably, the art of Krystyna Matuschowitz. I agree, wihout OTRS permission, should be deleted.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Photos of maps
[edit]Photos of copyrighted maps.
- File:Север России (133).JPG
- File:Север России (144).JPG
- File:Север России (209).JPG
- File:Великий Новгород (32).JPG
- File:Великий Новгород (37).JPG
- File:Великий Новгород (38).JPG
- File:Великий Новгород (84).JPG
- File:Великий Новгород (9).JPG
- File:Валаам (1).JPG
Anatoliy (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishan yogi
[edit]- File:Truyuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.jpg
- File:Riiiru.jpg
- File:Dfhghgh.jpg
- File:400424fj6 42286210 n.jpg
- File:Gdkghkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.jpg
- File:Hgfk,gjmff.jpg
- File:Prakash ypgo.jpg
- File:Nishan F.jpg
- File:Nishan C.jpg
- File:Nishan B.jpg
- File:Sfdhfsd.jpg
- File:Nsdf.jpg
- File:Ka;a;f.jpg
- File:378754 fdffsfasdf.jpg
Private photos used for self-promotion. Out of scope. --Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and block the uploader. Kobac (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that we can't use the {{PD-textlogo}} for these copyrighted images.
- File:Irbid municipality.GIF
- File:AArU logo.jpg
- File:JUST logo.jpg
- File:Jerash123.jpg
- File:Mafraqlogo.png
- File:Fuheis city seal.jpg
- File:Zarqa flag.jpg
- File:Salt City Jordan logo.JPG
- File:Ar Ramtha Seal.jpg
Kobac (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All exceed the threshold of originality in my opinion Captain-tucker (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Fake license, I think.
Kobac (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Morning Sunshine and Zscout370 Captain-tucker (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logos.
Kobac (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- File:ADFerroviaria.png The crest is from a dissepeared football team in spain. Was created in 1918. The crest belong to that year. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrupaci%C3%B3n_Deportiva_Ferroviaria
- File:RacingClubMadrid.png The crest is from a dissepeared football team in spain. Was created in 1914, and dssapeared in 1931. The crest belong to that period. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_Club_de_Madrid
--Brgesto (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Anything created in the 20th century is not old enough to be able to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. Although we may not know the author of the two crests, that does not mean that the were anonymously created. In the absence of evidence that either the authors died before 1942 or that they were actually created anonymously, we cannot keep them on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to source information, these pictures are for private use only: "De foto’s mogen alleen voor particulier gebruik worden geprint of verwerkt". Althought, I can't translate it accurately.
- File:De Spaanse voetballer Alfredo Di Stefano in aktie op 29 december 1959.jpg
- File:Francisco Paco Gento voetballer.jpg
Ralgistalk 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Podvinskij (talk · contribs)
[edit]Works by still living painter from Russia uploaded not by him without OTRS-permission.
- File:Grigory Mikheev Cross.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Ikon Savior The Almighty.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Portrait of Professor Valery Nikolaevich.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev. Portrait of a young daughter (Anastasia).jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Sunday.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Landscape.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev White church.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Memory.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Exodus.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev 12-01.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev XX.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Wayfarer.jpg
- File:Grigory Mikheev Three heroes.jpg
- File:Grigoriy Miheev Self-portrait.jpg
- File:Self portrait Miheev.jpg
Kobac (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Я, Григорий Михеев (en. Grigory Mikheev, Uzer: Podvinskij), являюсь автором икон: "Крест", "Господь Вседержитель", картин: "Автопортрет" (2 шт.), "12-01", "Исход", "Пейзаж", "Память", "Портрет профессора Валерия Николаевича Чекмонаса", "Воскресенье", "Три богатыря", "Путник", "Белый храм", "ХХ", "В пути", "Портрет дочери (Анастасия)". Я, Григорий Михеев, являюсь автором фотографий этих икон и картин: Grigory Mikheev Cross.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Ikon Savior The Almighty.jpg, Grigoriy Miheev Self-portrait.jpg, Self portrait Miheev.jpg, Grigory Mikheev 12-01.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Exodus.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Landscape.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Memory.jpg, Mikheev Portrait of Professor Valery Nikolaevich.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Sunday.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Three heroes.jpg, Grigory Mikheev Wayfarer.jpg, Grigory Mikheev White church.jpg, Grigory Mikheev XX.jpg, Grigory Mikheev En route.jpg, Grigory Mikheev. Portrait of a young daughter (Anastasia).jpg. Я, Григорий Михеев, доверяю себе, Григорию Михееву, фотографировать свои произведения и помещать фотографии моих произведений в интернете без ограничений. Grigory Mikheev (Uzer: Podvinskij).--Podvinskij (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- А кто такой / что такое Подвинский? Прочитайте, пожалуйста, ru:ВП:ДОБРО. Kobac (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Подвинский - псевдоним, обозначает человека мужского рода с берегов реки Двины.
- Я должен попросить разрешение на размещение моих работ в Википедии? Podvinskij (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Нет, вы должны доказать, что вы - это вы, а не кто-то, загрузивший фотографии с вашего сайта без вашего ведома. Для этого есть процедура ВП:ДОБРО. Нужно отправить письмо со своего официального электронного адреса и получить так называемый OTRS-тикет. Kobac (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Спасибо. Фотографии загружены не с сайта, а с моего фотоаппарата. Разрешение отправил. С уважением, --Podvinskij (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- А кто такой / что такое Подвинский? Прочитайте, пожалуйста, ru:ВП:ДОБРО. Kobac (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's wait the OTRS-ticket. The debate is closed. Kobac (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No use, we're not a porn depository Fry1989 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tell you what Commons is: COM:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:NOTCENSORED. MKFI (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. Leyo 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely copvio, no EXIF-date (in contrast to other uploads) Yikrazuul (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Request to closing admin -- I am very disturbed by the comment pattern of this contributor. Many of this contributor's comments are identical to the above "as per nom", as in these examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The deletion discussions are not the venue for votes. Contributors have an obligation to give reason(s) for the deletion, or keep opinions they offer. For this reason I suggest the closing admin discount this contributor's votes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Proofs that this image is a copyright violation????? Also opening a deletion request on the same image 25 hours later of this same image being kepted (albeit for a diferent reason)??? Tm (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't noticed that there has been already a DR. But we have now an uploaded image of very poor quality (grabbed somewhere?) with no EXIF-data, whereas other pictures are provided with (very odd). And 2nd, taken all pictures of this uploader I doubt that he is interested in commons as educational platform, rather depositing his private stuff. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - out of scope - Jcb (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored - [12] -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Home-made pornographic material of low quality. It may also be a screenshot from an unknown pornographic movie that was not made by the uploader. This was previously deleted, but recently overturned. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I combined the 3 DRs into one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - These are our only images of sex dolls being used as sex aids, which is, after all, their intended purpose. That they are low quality images is therefore immaterial as they are within scope. Deleting these images would leave us with something similar to a category full of pens, but no pictures of them being used to write with. It would be ridiculous. Your statement that "It may also be a screenshot from an unknown pornographic movie that was not made by the uploader" was debunked at the UDEL - From what I was able to see of the images, it looks like it was taken out of a video webcam. This is not out of the ordinary for this user; every thing else that was uploaded by this user is a webcam shot from the same model. I know he has other images that are of a similar quality, so any issues of copyvios is moot, in my opinion (User:Zscout370). In summary: in scope, freely licensed. Therefore we keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No new information is provided for deletion. I do agree that there's much copyvio stuff happening, but i doubt that there's some sort of cabal that is working behind the scenes trying very hard to find "unknown pornographic movie" from which to upload images which are all too likely to have been created by the uploader. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's still not in the project's scope. And even if these were taken from some self-made webcam video, the Commons should not be keeping some exhibitionist's poor quality homemade porn. It should get some homemade porn with higher production quality. These "photos" were previously deleted until mattbuck sought to restore them. I should not need to come up with new reasons to get these photos redeleted when the old reasons are just as suitable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sex dolls are in scope, would you agree? They have an en.wp article. Now, what is the primary purpose of such a doll? So would it not make sense for us to have images of that? I'm sorry you find the quality substandard, perhaps you could make some yourself? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- They may be in scope, but there is no reason to keep these photos just because we have no other photos that depict the same thing. It should also not be up to the onus of the user requesting deletion to make a better version of a photo just because it is claimed to be of poor quality. The Commons does not need Xiri's homemade porn of any type.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You admit they may be in scope but you do not want to keep them? That is self-contradicting. Because of what do you not want to keep them? COM:NOTCENSORED if you still did not understand it. Your last sentence is not really appropriate and useful, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The subject is in scope, but these particular photos of said subject are not. And I stand by the fact that we should not be keeping the homemade pornography of people who have only ever contributed homemade pornography to the Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- You admit they may be in scope but you do not want to keep them? That is self-contradicting. Because of what do you not want to keep them? COM:NOTCENSORED if you still did not understand it. Your last sentence is not really appropriate and useful, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- They may be in scope, but there is no reason to keep these photos just because we have no other photos that depict the same thing. It should also not be up to the onus of the user requesting deletion to make a better version of a photo just because it is claimed to be of poor quality. The Commons does not need Xiri's homemade porn of any type.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sex dolls are in scope, would you agree? They have an en.wp article. Now, what is the primary purpose of such a doll? So would it not make sense for us to have images of that? I'm sorry you find the quality substandard, perhaps you could make some yourself? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As last time: likely copvio, no EXIF-date (in contrast to other uploads); and out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- See comment by Zscout at UDEL - no evidence of copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, educational, informative, and encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How are the photos those things, exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the whole thread before picking on a single vote. These images are the only ones of any use of sex dolls in any way. They definitely add value to the categories they are in, and removing them without providing an alternative does Commons a great disservice. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- How are the photos those things, exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Although it is low quality, it is not replaceable at the moment. Handcuffed (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept On the basis of arguments presented by mattbuck, Beta M and Handcuffed. I will say that all 3 images are perhaps not required, but I will leave that for discussion amongst Commonists in appropriate fora. russavia (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Obscenity Walther16 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous discussions. File is in use, no new reason for deletion offered, nominator seems simply to object to human sexuality related content existing on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
explicit pornography 82.120.229.176 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: Multiple previous keeps. No new reason for deletion offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
from globoesporte.com; copyrighted 80.187.96.218 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag, it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/marinos/index.htm (photograph 20). Meowy (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: from 14 Jan 2007 Geagea (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kazakhstan (1992-1996).svg -- Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --Denniss (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.vriendenvantuvalu.nl/index.php Brimz (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to authorisation this use photograph! http://www.vriendenvantuvalu.nl/pages.php?page=40
what is the reason? --Klant01 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- We have received OTRS Permission for all images, see #2012010210020762 for more explanation. Edoderoo (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hereby recall the request for deletion. BR Brimz (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this really neccesary? ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No Denniss (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo. Kobac (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No coppyright information provided. Image has not been released under an applicable license or at least nog mentioned in the source provided, nor has any OTRS information been provided. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio from http://www.rtl.nl/soaps/gtst/meerdijk/fotoalbums/fotoalbum_cast_20112012.xml. Trijnsteltalk 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No coppyright information provided. Image has not been released under an applicable license or at least nog mentioned in the source provided, nor has any OTRS information been provided. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio from http://www.rtl.nl/soaps/gtst/meerdijk/fotoalbums/fotoalbum_cast_20112012.xml. Trijnsteltalk 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No coppyright information provided. Image has not been released under an applicable license or at least nog mentioned in the source provided, nor has any OTRS information been provided. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio from http://www.rtl.nl/soaps/gtst/meerdijk/fotoalbums/fotoalbum_cast_20112012.xml. Trijnsteltalk 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No coppyright information provided. Image has not been released under an applicable license or at least nog mentioned in the source provided, nor has any OTRS information been provided. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio from http://www.rtl.nl/soaps/gtst/meerdijk/fotoalbums/fotoalbum_cast_20112012.xml. Trijnsteltalk 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, uploader is obviously not the author of the picture and there is no hint that he is holder of the copyright as stated in the licence. FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Author Madame Yevonde died in 1975, i.e. this photo is not PD before 2046. PierreSelim (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium sculptor (Edmond De Valériola (1877-1956)) died less than 70 years ago. Coyau (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted artwork in a country without freedom of panorama (undelete in 2027) PierreSelim (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Copy vio. Tekstman (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo applies. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Not free file; does not belong on Wikimedia LiamS (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The design is PD-ineligible, but delete it anyways, we have a better version at File:WIndows 8 logo.png Fry1989 eh? 23:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. JuTa 22:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Trixt (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Trixt (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag, it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/marinos/index.htm (photograph 7) Meowy (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. According to www.virtualani.org, "This page [monastery of Saint Marinos] was first published on the 14th January 2007 and was last revised on the 8th January 2011." Takabeg (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per num. Geagea (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
File:The Slovak inhabitants of Békéscsaba, Hungary protest against the deportation of Hungarians from Czechoslovakia (1946).jpg
[edit]copyvio. Despite what the description page claims, there is no provision for "simple photographs" anywhere within Hungarian copyright law, so the normal 70 years pma applies. Liliana-60 (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Alfréd Rényi lived 1921-1970. Unlikely to be 70 years pma. Liliana-60 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Converted from speedy; this just looks like a differently colored "power" button on a computer and other devices. What say you? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a logo of a basketball tournament; not sure about the intended use of this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Very low resolution and lack of metadata makes me suspect a copyvio. Plus, you know, it says "Permission: No". -mattbuck (Talk) 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Very low res copy of File:Enguerrand Quarton, Le Couronnement de la Vierge (1454).jpg Shakko (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
1:1 duplicate of File:Balkab1.jpg Wdwd (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this is a 1991 statue by en:Vyacheslav Klykov (1939-2006) in Moscow. Per COM:FOP#Russia, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Issues with FOP FASTILY (TALK) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DW of map. Anatoliy (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DW of map. Anatoliy (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 13:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Spam image being used to spam enwiki through the use of sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright: it looks like a photocopy of a derivative work; apparently, the uploader took a picture of another picture made by an unspecified author, that assembled it from several other pictures made by other unspecified authors. —Andrei S. Talk 14:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
this photo is from another, newer model (BMW E36, not E30) X-tos333 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.139.62 16:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag, it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/marinos/index.htm (photograph 8) Meowy (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Takabeg (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This image has a false copyright tag, it is not the work of the uploader and been taken from the website virtualani.org. See http://www.virtualani.org/gez/index.htm (photograph 4). Meowy (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
According to pl:Józef Gaczyński artist died 1963, no evidence that uploader holds copyright. Funfood ␌ 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Date 1946 - so doubtfully own work. rights of source image not clear. Funfood ␌ 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
maybe self scanned/edited, but I doubt this is really own work Avron (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- RESPONSE BY PUBLISHER
Avron i respect your opinion and i understand ur concern also but u need to understand that this badge is a part of the regiment that i represent and i have the right to publish it. The photo is of actual badge and then it was scanned and then the background was altered. But having said that i cannot design the badge from my own mind as it is there since 1849. As far as rights are concerned its no issue because i have the rights to publish it.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I was perusing the village pump and noticed and noticed that somebody questioned the validity of the license on this image at COM:VP#media:MADBANK.png. Are Malagasy bank notes free? There's nothing on the file page to suggest they are, nor in the descriptions of other images in Category:Banknotes of Madagascar so I'm bringing it here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have written to the central bank of Madagascar. I will wait a few time for an answer. If I get no answer, this file will have to be deleted. --Abaddon1337 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I got an answer from the central bank of Madagascar. This file has to be deleted.
- From their point of view, a scan from a banknote or a coin is assimilated to copy and the malagasy law say that :
Art. 144
Seront punis d’un emprisonnement de un mois à six mois et d’une
amende de 15 000 à 150 000 francs :
- Sincerely --Abaddon1337 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The cited law is an anti-counterfeiting law, which is a non-copyright restriction. However, since no evidence of their public domain status has been presented since February, we must be conservative and delete. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I hate the pic! Madburns22 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- yes. i want this photo off. please! Madburns22 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The opinion provided for the image is not a valid reason for deleting. The image is released under a free license by its author, which allows for its use on Wikimedia Commons. The best way to replace the image is to find better ones, which need to be released under a free license. Consider asking Burns' publicist or Flickr users to find additional images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deleting imo. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:OTRS ticket relates to this image sourced to a Flickr stream. Unfortunately there was no statement at the time about copyright status on Flickr and the image is no longer on display there, however other images in that stream are at a default of 'all rights reserved'. Checking the ticket there was an assumption of good faith from the uploader who included an apparent email from the Flickr stream owner, though unfortunately this relies on Yahoo addresses and the copied email from the Flickr stream owner has been via an anonymizing no-reply address, presumably something to do with the way Flickr worked at the time. A complaint received on the OTRS Noticeboard throws doubt on the original good faith assumptions and the background here is weak enough for the precautionary principle to apply. I do not believe there is a COM:IDENT specific issue here as alternatives such as File:Brooke Burns 2010.jpg exist, however this may be a factor in the complaint. This situation is too weak for a speedy, but I recommend deletion as more recently taken alternatives are available and the original release appears weak enough to cause me doubt and take any complaint seriously.
If anyone wishes to strenuously argue the case to keep, I recommend we ask the Flickr stream owner for a much clearer email to OTRS from a verifiable address and preferably a statement with regard to context of the photograph and whether a release from the model is needed.
It is of interest that the uploader no longer believes that Flickrmail is sufficient evidence for a release (see diff), which appears to be what this release happens to rely on. Fæ (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have significant reason to doubt the OTRS ticket. The uploader emails permission to permissions-commons on a regular basis and is familiar with the hoops he has to jump through (which are more complex these days than they were in 2009, hence his comment about no longer accepting Flickr mails), and I've never seen any issues with his tickets (though I've only processed one or two myself). From the post at the OTRS Noticeboard and the first nomination of the image, it looks like "permission" in this case refers to personality rights rather than copyright. There may well be a personality rights/IDENT issue (since the photo looks like it was taken in a private place), but I don't think there's a copyright issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also believe the first nominator also could be Ms. Burns herself judging by the photos uploaded and what was uploaded. If that is the case, we have alternates (some more recent too) of Ms. Burns so we could safely delete this image. With everything else (disappearing from Flickr, uploader not wanting to use Flickr mail anymore) I am very inclined to say Delete. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also believe the first nominator also could be Ms. Burns herself judging by the photos uploaded and what was uploaded. If that is the case, we have alternates (some more recent too) of Ms. Burns so we could safely delete this image. With everything else (disappearing from Flickr, uploader not wanting to use Flickr mail anymore) I am very inclined to say
- Delete As the original uploader, the Flickr author contacted me on Wednesday requesting the image be deleted. The subject's publicist asked that the author remove the image from the Flickr account, who then in turn asked that I remove it from Commons. Although I believe it was uploaded through the acceptable requirements at the time, I see no reason to keep it if the subject doesn't want it up, the author requested deletion, and we already have better images. I'll see if I can get in contact with the publicist to get an image the subject prefers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, that is very helpful. My apologies if the wording of the nomination can be read as any bad faith for your original upload, that was not my intention. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't get that at all, thanks for taking the time to research the image. I was going to put it up for deletion and was glad you beat me to the punch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, that is very helpful. My apologies if the wording of the nomination can be read as any bad faith for your original upload, that was not my intention. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
From the Author: What's the status of this deletion request?
- Waiting for someone to close it; Commons deletion requests usually take longer than most other Wikipedia sites. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Deleted per Nehrams2020, "I see no reason to keep it if the subject doesn't want it up, the author requested deletion" but not "and we already have better images", as this was IMHO the best photo of Brooke Burns at Commons (one of the other two is rather blurry, the other of very small resolution and with strong artistic make-up limiting its use). Gestumblindi (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- But not unlikely since the user account's only and first edits are at en:Ivonne dark. --Saibo (Δ) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Not unlikely" is not a reliable source keep criterion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did I claim that? ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Not unlikely" is not a reliable source keep criterion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. I'm afraid the uploader is just as likely to be a fan as the artist themself. There's not even a claim that they are the artist or have permission. --Simonxag (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work (COM:DW) of this image from the internet: http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.panzerbaer.de/helper/pix/bw_autokran_13t_glw_faun_lk_1212-485-002.jpg --80.187.96.218 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep The reason of the deleting request is pure nonsens because the right side of an “Autokran 13 to Faun” looks like the right side of an “Autokran 13 to Faun” allover the world, and you mister 80.187.96.218, better go back to the kindergarten instead to waste the time of working people! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep very funny dear 80... --178.190.249.146 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep No DW. --MittlererWeg (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep ??? --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment The votes of 178.190.249.146 and Hedwig Klawuttke are the result of Forum shopping on de wiki by Steinbeisser. --High Contrast (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment is that true? -- Steinbeisser (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the relevant links that show the FORUMSHOP-action: [13]; [14]. --High Contrast (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment And? Nothing more you have to bring in? Seems to be that's a crime in your understanding! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a violation of w:WP:FORUMSHOPPING - which you obviously do not know. --High Contrast (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so because:„Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful.“ it's just “unhelpful” that's all -- Steinbeisser (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Funktioniert das denn, das Bild von einer Internetseite kopieren und hier als "Eigenes Werk" einzustellen? --Anton-Josef (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
nicht wirklich - es sein denn, Du zeigst mir mal die betreffende Internetseite, was Dir aber nicht gelingen wird -- Steinbeisser (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Der Benutzer Steinbeisser zeichnet und malt eine Unzahl von Bilder für die Wikipedia. Dabei geht er meist (mutmaßlich immer) so vor, dass er ein Foto irgendwo hernimmt (hin- und wieder frei lizenzierte, wie hier), manchmal wohl auch irgendwelche Bilder aus dem www, die er einfach elektronisch "abpaust". Das geht aber nicht, da es sich um schnöde Abkupferei eines urheberrechtlich geschützen Werkes handelt. Die aktuelle Diskussion ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür: Die Ähnlichkeit dieser Zeichnung ist frappierend verglichen mit diesen Beiden Fotos: [15], [16]. Deshalb votiere ich für die Löschung dieses Bildes und stimme für die Diskussion über mögliche weitere Urheberrechtsverletzungen von Steinbeisser. Seine Reaktion darauf wird wohl aussehen wie immer: schwache Kommentare und Geschimpfe (vgl. oben). -- Hopüs 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Tja mei lieber Hopüs, was Du nicht kapierst ist einfach, daß ein Autokran aussieht wie der andere. Wo ist der Beweis, daß es sich um den von Dir bezeichneten handelt und welchen von den beiden meinst Du denn jetzt genau? Wenn Du hier keine genauen Angaben machen kannst, solltest Du das hier leiber unterlassen! “Seine Reaktion darauf wird wohl aussehen wie immer: schwache Kommentare und Geschimpfe” (leider nicht! -- Steinbeisser (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no proof, that the image was taken from here [17] or maybe from here [18] or maybe from another one, or from a scanned photo or somewhat else. Is only a unproven allegation of an nameless IP -- Steinbeisser (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep --Unterillertaler (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC) The drawing is the self work done by the author.
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Per [19], this is a poster from 1989 that was "discovered" and shared on Facebook. Highly unlikely uploader owns the copyright. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Photographer/designer is Peter Maloney and has given express permission for free use of the file. The artist depicted Peter Head is my father and Wendy Saddington has also given permission for the file to be used by anyone for anything.
I am able to get photographer Peter Maloney to email permission to Wikimedia - can you please help me understand how to go about doing this? Apologies if I have done it incorrectly, I am learning how as I go and have very limited time to study properly. Nocturnes43 (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission after six months . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a statue at en:Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in the United States. The site was established in 1980 so I take it that this is a post-1978 statue, i.e. that it is unpublished and that the photo is a copyright violation per COM:FOP#United States. Stefan4 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's even more recent than that. I think this is in the plaza at the visitor center, which wasn't built until 1996. Unless this is a reinstallation or recasting of an older statue, it's still copyrighted. cmadler (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted or the author has died at the age of 11 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.45.92.171 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-23T14:01:46 (UTC) Saibo (Δ) 02:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Info: apparently from Poland or Russia. I have converted this from copyvio to a DR since it is not clear - may be PD in poland. --Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I added a proper source, which should help verify the details. Certainly the claim that the author died more than 70 years ago is not true, and I don't know what "op unknown" is supposed to mean. If it's not a copyright violation, it should be replaced with the full resolution version and have the watermarks cropped out. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- We have {{PD-Polish}} (which I had in mind when I started this DR). However, I am no expert in polish copyrights. --Saibo (Δ) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC) the uploader Mcowkin has added {{PD-Ukraine}} in the meantime. Is that from Ukraine?! --Saibo (Δ) 02:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- They also changed the photo to a completely different one again – not the one at the source I found. That one seems to come from http://filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php/21198. Can we please stick to one version so that we can discuss it? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's a movie poster so PD-Polish doesn't apply. However, if no author is given (which is quite likely for movie posters) it would be PD-old. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-Polish}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- did you read the comment just above yours?! --Saibo (Δ) 21:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- So what? Did you read {{PD-Polish}}? Did you look at the image? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- No and yes (~ a month ago). Can't you just contribute productively to this DR? Why is it PD-polish? Why is the comment above yours invalid? --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can't you just read that PD-Polish is about photos, and just look to see that this is a photo? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- No and yes (~ a month ago). Can't you just contribute productively to this DR? Why is it PD-polish? Why is the comment above yours invalid? --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- So what? Did you read {{PD-Polish}}? Did you look at the image? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- did you read the comment just above yours?! --Saibo (Δ) 21:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have textual/written evidence indicating that this file is indeed free, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
obviously not own work (copied after existing flag design); no evidence that municipial flags are PD in country of origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs) 2012-01-25T12:46:06 (UTC) Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there is just "no evidence" please make it a DR. Done now.
- That seems to apply: {{PD-Albania-exempt}} since this image matches: "the official symbols of the state, symbols of other public organizations and public authorities, such as: Coat of arms, seals, flags, emblems, medallions, medals;" --Saibo (Δ) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep now in light of PD-Albania-exempt. I maintain that my earlier speedy nomination was procedurally correct though – it was (and in fact still is) tagged as PD-own, which was clearly wrong, and a nominator can't be expected to check for each and every theoretically possible way how something could conceivably be PD after all, before tagging such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Vergina Sun flag is PD, the text is too simple, the rest is two non-distinct trees and nuts. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot from Twitter. No permissions from the photographers. Kobac (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have the same screenshot and I give a permission for the publication http://gazaryan-suren.livejournal.com/71976.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suren Gazaryan (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Suren, but what about the permission from photographers? Kobac (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
just a part of stamp. Non PD-BY-exempt now ShinePhantom (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The stamp itself isn't protected, so how would a derivative work of a public domain work lose it? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Stamp is not protected just when it is stamp. ShinePhantom (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Keep The original work is in the public domain due to a clause in the copyright law, so any derivatives can be in the public domain (or under a free license). In this case, the image is licensed correctly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- In Belarus law: Закон 258-З «О почтовой связи» от 15 декабря 2003 года the stamp is official symbol only if it is stamp - country name («БЕЛАРУСЬ», «BELARUS»), denomination and year must be represented. Do you see that on this file? Also the author (copyright holder) of stamp art (made especially for stamp or adopted) keeps all his/her copyrights for other usages of work than stamp usage. So, many derivative works with belorussian stamps are impossible.ShinePhantom (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the photo, it was most likely a Soviet official photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunatelly Soviet official photo are protected. ShinePhantom (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know but it still find it strange the stamp itself is not protected by copyright, then you take something out and it somehow got a protection. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunatelly Soviet official photo are protected. ShinePhantom (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by the photo, it was most likely a Soviet official photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- In Belarus law: Закон 258-З «О почтовой связи» от 15 декабря 2003 года the stamp is official symbol only if it is stamp - country name («БЕЛАРУСЬ», «BELARUS»), denomination and year must be represented. Do you see that on this file? Also the author (copyright holder) of stamp art (made especially for stamp or adopted) keeps all his/her copyrights for other usages of work than stamp usage. So, many derivative works with belorussian stamps are impossible.ShinePhantom (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- That makes no sense.
- Stamp is not protected just when it is stamp. ShinePhantom (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, really, how? -- Makakaaaa (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The stated license doesn't cover the extracted specific portions from an official document without a state sign. FlorianH76 (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, a crop of a stamp doesn't suddenly gain copyright protection. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. 84.61.139.62 17:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, the whole short was made to be freely used by US government in the Military war effort. Any shot of this short could be uploaded and catogrized in Category:The Spirit of '43.--Maher27777 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this really own work (are you the photographer)? See freddy-krueger-glove.jpg Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just send an extra email to ask for a clarification (if he's really the author and if he has the proof for that, with a reference to the link). Trijnstel (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- RE sent, explaining that it is in fact my own work. Unable to proof that. 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFreD (talk • contribs) 2012-02-18T09:05:34 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how you made this icon? That would help. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I used an icon maker (Iconlover) to create the icon from this image. Edited around a bit to get a clear image. So basically, it's a drawing of a photo of a replica of a moviecrop :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFreD (talk • contribs) 2012-02-19T13:00:27 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for this explanation - that is very helpful. To explain the issue: what you did is a derivative work of some other people's work. I have strong doubts that is okay. Please could you draw that on your own without using other photos as basis? By the way: I understand that you want to use this in your signature - that is discouraged anyway. Also I have fixed your signature here since it was not linking correctly. --Saibo (Δ) 14:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a lot of difficulties to draw this without using u photograph as an example. But I have already given up on uploading anything to the commons database. In the future I'll settle for images that are uploaded by others. EvilFreD 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Using photographs "as example" could also be problematic (again: COM:DW). --Saibo (Δ) 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said: never mind, I give up. Maybe this picture looks too much like a copyrighted image, maybe not. Even so, I give up. I'm not going to create anything myself, I won't upload anything else to the database. Because I can never proof that I own the rights. In fact, all procedures are too complicated anyway. It's madness! EvilFreD 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Using photographs "as example" could also be problematic (again: COM:DW). --Saibo (Δ) 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a lot of difficulties to draw this without using u photograph as an example. But I have already given up on uploading anything to the commons database. In the future I'll settle for images that are uploaded by others. EvilFreD 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for this explanation - that is very helpful. To explain the issue: what you did is a derivative work of some other people's work. I have strong doubts that is okay. Please could you draw that on your own without using other photos as basis? By the way: I understand that you want to use this in your signature - that is discouraged anyway. Also I have fixed your signature here since it was not linking correctly. --Saibo (Δ) 14:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I used an icon maker (Iconlover) to create the icon from this image. Edited around a bit to get a clear image. So basically, it's a drawing of a photo of a replica of a moviecrop :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFreD (talk • contribs) 2012-02-19T13:00:27 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how you made this icon? That would help. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- RE sent, explaining that it is in fact my own work. Unable to proof that. 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFreD (talk • contribs) 2012-02-18T09:05:34 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested? FASTILY (TALK) 04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
maybe self scanned/edited, but I doubt this is really own work Avron (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- RESPONSE BY PUBLISHER
Avron i respect your opinion and i understand ur concern also but u need to understand that this badge is a part of the regiment that i represent and i have the right to publish it. The photo is of actual badge and then it was scanned and then the background was altered. But having said that i cannot design the badge from my own mind as it is there since 1849. As far as rights are concerned its no issue because i have the rights to publish it.
- I don't really unterstand. If this is from 1849 then this is almost sure pd-old. The author and source are still unclear. Perhaps ask in Commons:Village pump/Copyright hot to license this images.--Avron (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored FASTILY (TALK) 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Self-PR by Waelhikal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).
Son pesimos, lee los contenidos antes de marcarlo para borrado, eres fatal, inutilisas el servicio ¡lee! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waelhikal (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Mr. Hikal, I can't speak Spanish but you can use the Google's translation service. Can you tell about the permission, for example, from Mr. Osvaldo Tieghi for publication his work here? Kobac (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've looked at about ten of these and they appear to be PDF copies of recent journals without permission of any sort. Therefore they are copyvios, out of scope as self promotion and out of scope because Commons is not an archive for contemporary journals. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- We need to delete also all of the files by Wael Hikal which not listed here, because they uploaded after starting of this debate. Kobac (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- We need a one by one approach here. For example File:El presente y futuro de la VictimologíaDyC.pdf is written by Wael Hikal, and I don't think "Self-PR" is a sufficient reason to delete a scientific text published by the author under a Creative Commons license. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Works of art from non-notable artists are out-of-scope as are photographs of non-notable people. We are not a repository for most literary works (as that is defined in the copyright laws), so why should we keep texts from non-notable people? It seems to me that we have two reasons to delete in every case here and three in those where the uploader was not the author.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
no OR on commons
- File:El sistema acusatorio.pdf
- File:Balística Forense.pdf
- File:El miedo al crimen.pdf
- File:El neonaticidio y sus posibles causas.pdf
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, there is no rule against Original Research on Commons -- many images are, effectively, OR. However, as was the case in the previous DR, these are out of scope and are copyvios, as there is no evidence of permission from the author of these works. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Permission from original photographer (or his heirs) missing. At zeno in color. But no author mentioned. The author given on the file page here is obviously wrong. Saibo (Δ) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous 1916 postcard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really want to play the old game? Well: How do you know it is anon.? --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- You know about this 1916 photo. You are accepting that one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really want to play the old game? Well: How do you know it is anon.? --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Badge.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&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}
![[7]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047198){kind=link}
![[8]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047215){kind=link}
![[9]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal_3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047164){kind=link}
![[10]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Puppensex_1.jpg&diff=57047266&oldid=57042483){kind=link}
![[11]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Desnudo_masculino-1.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=57052193){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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}
_Badge.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Badge.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Badge.png){kind=link}
_Badge.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Licence is hoax. {{PD-UA-exempt}} does not apply to these photos. The photos of people are also on Ukraine Wikipedia under the same name without any licence whatsoever.
- File:KRAUSS SAB.jpg
- File:KRAUSS refectory.jpg
- File:KRAUSS hostel 8.jpg
- File:KRAUSS hostel 7.jpg
- File:KRAUSS from the sky.jpg
- File:Usichenko.jpg
- File:Us sm.jpg
- File:Ni4esov.jpg
- File:Kozorez sm.jpg
- File:Fedosenko sm.jpg
- File:Andrusevi4.jpg (addition 19 February 2012)
- File:KRAUSS stadium.jpg (addition 19 February 2012)
Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The license is not a hoax. When choosing the type of license was a mistake due to inexperience. - Igor1409 (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. Mistake or not, the uploader's revised claims that he created all these photos himself is clearly not true either. There is no chance that this technically competent portrait was taken by the same photographer as this photo with tilted lines, harsh shadows and blown-out flash reflexes. The other photos also show variations in technical quality and photographic abilities that are too great to have come from a single person. Coupled with the uploader's changing stories, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take them at their word regarding any of their uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I added two more images to this request. The uploader claims own work for them, but as the uploader has previously been changing source and copyright status of images, I am not confident that the current source and licence are correct. Finally, there is File:Krauss logo.png by the same uploader, but I guess that the logo might pass under "(d)" in {{PD-UA-exempt}}), although it would be nice to hear the opinion of someone else. User:LX sourced some of the photos to this forum thread from 2005. Some photos uploaded by the uploader are aerial photos and most people do not have the necessary equipments (e.g. a helicopter) in order to produce such images themselves. It is not clear whether the uploader possesses a helicopter. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Different photos are performed in different conditions and using different equipment - sometimes a mobile phone, and sometimes a professional camera. Publishing photos online does not deny their authorship. To shoot from the air does not necessarily have its own helicopter - we're talking about the photographs to the paper on aviation school where I studied and worked. - Igor1409 (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. No EXIF data, typical web resolutions.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked the person published the photos on the forum indicate their author. Check your link. - Igor1409 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)