Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_02_ies.jpg){kind=link}
vulgur content. Vilate Indian digital media laws. P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Unfortunately, that deletion rationale is distinctly unpersuasive. There's a lot of content on Commons which is more ethically dubious (starting with Peter Klashorst photos) and/or much more "vulgur"[sic]. Furthermore, Commons is only concerned with the laws of the United States and Florida and the laws of the country where the content originated. (Considering all the wet-sari scenes in Bollywood movies, I'm not sure on what basis bikini photos are allegedly banned in India anyway...). AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion given - see COM:CENSOR. Nor are we worried that it may violate Indian law, given that Commons is not hosted in India, and it seems very unlikely the image is from India. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the real Amy Fisher uploaded original work, no verification of username Hold and wave (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence that User:Amy Fisher ever identified to OTRS over this picture. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep No evidence that the uploader isn't the copyright holder. This image doesn't seem to appear elsewhere on the internet in this form, I can see no evidence of prior publication that would suggest the need for an OTRS communication from anybody. Whether "User:Amy Fisher" is the "Amy Fisher" depicted is also rather irrelevant, non-de-plumes are fairly standard on Commons, and often fans upload images using a variation of the name of the subject who they are enamoured with. This is not really a problem unless "User:Amy Fisher" is claiming to be the 'real' "Amy Fisher" (probably a stage name or non-de-plume anyway), and that isn't actually relevant to whether the uploader is the photographer or rights holder. A photograph with intact EXIF data is unlikely to be a commercial publicity shot etc. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since a question is asked on the originality of user or author of the photograph, It should be answered by the uploader, or else it can be considered as a copyvio (Web presence not required all the time, may be this particular picture was never released to the web by its author..)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you see the fallacy of assuming good faith until someone chooses to demand proof? By that formula every image that does not have an OTRS message will eventually get deleted once the uploader is no longer active on the project. It can not be "considered as a copyvio" just because the uploader is not here to answer a question. There needs to be at least a skerrick of evidence that this large format image, with intact exif data, that is not found uploaded on the internet at this size (except on wiki*edia sites) or larger, let alone uploaded earlier than this copy, is not the work of the uploader. Find a single copy of this image (or even the cropped version) that is larger, or uploaded earlier and I will happily demand an OTRS message immediately, but until then it is validly and credibly licensed. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- As i explained earlier, a bigger or a crop will not be easily identified if the image never released into the web, and if the uploader is a professional and want to contribute to commons he/she will definitely answer all the queries...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My point is that it is unrealistic (though of course possible) to expect a response from someone who uploaded an image 2 years ago, and is no longer active here. It is not a pro image, not even a pro camera, but what I would expect from a bit of do it yourself publicity photographing. If it was never released onto the web elsewhere then how did someone steal it and upload it here? But following is my original followup that hit this edit conflict:
- Ok, not quite the smoking gun I was looking for, but pretty good evidence that we know where the photo came from:
- It appears her husband (Louis Bellera, possibly now ex-husband) is a bit of a semi-pro photographer, I eventually found this photo. Basically a full size shot of her, with a similar background (though vertical rather than horizontal stripes - probably lying down when this one was taken) with intact EXIF data, showing it was shot with the same model of camera (Canon EOS 40D), similar camera settings, dated 24-01-2009 (vs 27-12-2008), edited with Adobe photoshop on 13-02-2009 (vs 14-01-2009). So little doubt that this is his photo. Of course that doesn't mean it is a copyvio, quite possibly (as it was uploaded the day after it was edited) he uploaded it for publicity purposes, but it does demand a verification from him (as he normally appears to keep his images all-rights-reserved) - his email is available on his website if anyone wants to ask him. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It will will not work in that way, if a doubt against the copyright has been raised, it should be resolved by the uploader or the supporter, or else it can be deleted and if the license is okay he/she can re-upload it later...or else an OTRS will be better in this case--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- As i explained earlier, a bigger or a crop will not be easily identified if the image never released into the web, and if the uploader is a professional and want to contribute to commons he/she will definitely answer all the queries...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you see the fallacy of assuming good faith until someone chooses to demand proof? By that formula every image that does not have an OTRS message will eventually get deleted once the uploader is no longer active on the project. It can not be "considered as a copyvio" just because the uploader is not here to answer a question. There needs to be at least a skerrick of evidence that this large format image, with intact exif data, that is not found uploaded on the internet at this size (except on wiki*edia sites) or larger, let alone uploaded earlier than this copy, is not the work of the uploader. Find a single copy of this image (or even the cropped version) that is larger, or uploaded earlier and I will happily demand an OTRS message immediately, but until then it is validly and credibly licensed. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since a question is asked on the originality of user or author of the photograph, It should be answered by the uploader, or else it can be considered as a copyvio (Web presence not required all the time, may be this particular picture was never released to the web by its author..)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
As Austria has a lower threshold of originality for the copyrightability of logos, this logo is likely copyrighted. The source website carries the note "© 2012 WIFI – Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Wirtschaftskammer Salzburg". I have contacted the copyright holder by email on Febr. 19th, but received no answer so far. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Today, 9 days after my email, the likely rights holder answered and requested the deletion of the logo. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Ticket:2012022810008021 the WIFI did not give permission to publish the logo --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the Flickr uploader (danacreilly) has the rights to release the photos under the CC-BY license. I uploaded the file from Flickr to Commons, then I noticed that the photo has a different author specified in the EXIF tag. The Flickr account has many photos with top European politicians, with EXIF tags crediting different photographers. After a closer look, I don't think that danacreilly has the rights to release the photos under the CC-BY license, but I'm not sure if we should simply remove the photo or take any other steps to confirm the license. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Plain and simple flickrwashing. Indeed EXIF data on many images identify different photographers and news agencies. Account put on the Flickr blacklist. Lupo 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly the same as File:Local_illumination.JPG which it is supposed to have superseded, only converted to PNG with compression artifacts still present. —danhash (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by PierreSelim Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly the same as File:History Wikipedia English SOPA 2012 Blackout2.jpg which it is supposed to have superseded, only converted to PNG with compression artifacts still present. —danhash (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by PierreSelim Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a mistake, I do not want that image appears on interent. Benkoln (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: user request, also out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Il s'agit d'une photo privé, je ne souhaite plus qu'elle apparaisse sur Wikimédia. Bastien1990 (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality (badJPG, low resolution), replaced by File:PAC-1.svg. Leyo 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom --NEURO ⇌ 08:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Because I don't know how to know what license of this file is. I tried but it's impossible for me. Lucas Altuzarra (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Very likely copyright violation. -Pete F (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and no license Lymantria (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
_02_ies.jpg){kind=link}
_02_ies.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no answer at User_talk:Ies#File:Witten_Stockum_-_Zeche_Vereinigte_Hamburg_und_Franziska_.28Theodor.29_02_ies.jpg - perission from the text author needed. Saibo (Δ) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose Saiboo means permission from the text author needed Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept as both conditions of freedom of panorama appear to be met. Firstly, the signpost is on public ground (owned by the Stadt Witten). Secondly, the signpost appears to be a permanent installation. To be considered as such it is sufficient that it its installation is open-ended, i.e. there is no obvious indication that this signpost was installed for a short limited time only. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
my concerns ↑ were not proven wrong. As said on the user talk (this was linked) the sign could well be temporary for the "SchachtZeichen" event (photo on same day, same place: File:Witten_Stockum_-_Zeche_Vereinigte_Hamburg_und_Franziska_(Theodor)_-_Schachtzeichen_03_ies.jpg). Saibo (Δ) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
_-_Schachtzeichen_03_ies.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: neither the other image nor the User dicussion poved that the sign is not permanent located there. --JuTa 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
_02_ies.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope: no educational value and this file isn't being used anywhere. Mathonius (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Better versions already exist: File:Israel flag crossed.png and File:No Israel.svg. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per Mathonius as it is unused and without educational value and thereby out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Kobac (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Border-line scope. But good photo, so i say keep it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as this is in violation of COM:PEOPLE as this shot was taken in a private environment and the name of the boy was given in the description. This could be solved by a permission granted by his parents through OTRS. However, I concur that this is a border-line case in regard to COM:SCOPE. Such private photos are better uploaded elsewhere. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
166.147.127.53 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept as no reason for deletion was given and no obvious problem is to be seen. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:150px-ejemplo.png Tusca~enwiki (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: DR opened by mistake (or vandalism). --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
No FOP in USA. 2002 sculpture GrapedApe (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the template. See template added and please familiarize yourself with the many similar pictures from the USA in Commons (for example: Category:Sculptures in the United States by state). Best regards, Oyoyoy (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sculpture from 2002, tagged as "its subject was published in the United States before 1978". No COM:FOP in USA for statues. Bulwersator (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of "Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed" on the DR tag. Best regards, GrapedApe (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per GrapedApe. The artist, BTW, is Sebastián. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, not usable for educational purposes. Prosfilaes (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree. JRLibby
Deleted: Unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Bottomless lolicon. This image depicts a underaged children without the bottom piece of her school swimsuit (sukumizu). This is basically child pornography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No sexual activity, no pornography, no realistic reinterpretation of an actual child. Perfectly legal and no child porn at all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- delete as useless drawing Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see blue top and skin colour bikini bottom. What do you see? It illustrates a young girls Sukumizu with two parts. Seems to me she is even way past puberty. Honi soit qui mal y pense! --Paddy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with analysis by Niabot (talk · contribs). And also Paddy (talk · contribs) has it right — it's a skin-colour bikini bottom. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per lack of any encyclopedic value / COM:SCOPE - Alison ❤ 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per Alison --JN466 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of educational value, out of scope. Also, that it's hard to tell whether she's wearing bottoms or not suggests that the quality is poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep：Uh...I think it's not child pornography, and users could use it on "Hentai" or "Ecchi".The quality is poor because it is created by mouse...--KOKUYO (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps recoloring the bottom to something other than skin tone would solve part of the problem. Also, isn't the average sukumizu a one piece swimsuit? --Kramer Associates (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&page=File%3ASukumizu_Girl.jpg – KOKUYO is the image's creator, and KOKUYO has said, "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'." This means that the image is a bottomless lolicon; she isn't wearing a "skin-colored bottom" as claimed by Paddy and Cirt. Can the closing sysop please take note of this while weighing Paddy's and Cirt's !votes? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop this stupid play of word bending. There is no differentiation between hentai and ecchi in most Asian languages, including Japanese in the first place. Additionally it's usage is widely spread. It can mean anything from perverted to a very mild form of sexy, while other terms like R18 or Adult are more common to describe what we usually refer to as hentai. That ugly construction you made of is your faulty interpretation. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am appalled and disgusted at how Michaeldsuarez tells the closing sysop how to weigh Cirt's and my vote! --Paddy (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [1], [2]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez you are very good at telling people what to think and what to do. Maybe you should apply as dictator in some country? I am sure you would do a great job. --Paddy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [1], [2]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Viewed at 4x, it looks like bottomless is more likely than otherwise, but we could always ask KOKUYO what his intentions were. Wouldn't replacing this with a more refined version of something like this then revdeleting the original solve all problems with this image except for questions of scope? --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: If you want't to keep the recolored version you will need to keep the original as well. This is enforced by the GFDL license which requires that the file history must be kept intact. Otherwise it would be a copyright violation.- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [3] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.webcitation.org/65oZumlIT – Is this good enough? If it isn't enough, then it appears to me that GFDL doesn't do a good job at making content free (i.e. easy to share and modify). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [3] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg&diff=58424662&oldid=58422673){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anime_girl_at_beach.jpg&diff=67537639&oldid=67533962){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg&diff=67643732&oldid=67643667){kind=link}
- Thats exactly the reason why Wikipedia switched to CC-BY-SA (dual licensing). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GFDL_question_.E2.80.93_Must_Commons_host_the_original_in_order_to_host_the_derivative.3F – I'm seeking a third opinion in order to clarify the issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just read 4. MODIFICATIONS: »I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.« We can only ensure the history is preserved if it is kept on WM commons. --Paddy (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – We are obliged to keep the history, but we aren't obliged to keeps the code / bits that makes the JPEG itself. We can handle this the same way we move GFDL images from Wikipedia to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment：I only want to share my old work for everyone.......and "Hentai" or "Ecchi" is not same as "Lolicon". (P.S：English is too hard to read and write for me....)--KOKUYO (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [4], [5]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez yes from this discussion it seems to be the place where you prove your points. Your original accusation was that it is a lolicon. The author says it is not. The only difference between you and a god is: that a god knows everything but you seem to know everything better than anyone else including a god. --Paddy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of driving away new users i welcome KOKUYO and thank him for providing and sharing its content with all of us. You are welcome. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling people to go away. So nice of you :-( --Paddy (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there is one thing that i dislike, than it are comments on deletion requests as the first edit. But if you want to contribute media to commons, then you are welcome. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic. And keep your false and racist allegations to yourself. And yes I know the law and a I do not care about you or the FBI --Paddy (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it very well as educational. It shows children as they are. Everyone is born without clothes, you were born that way as well. There is nothing wrong with this picture, except that you imagine things that aren't part of this picture. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how many images of lolicons are needed on this project? There's already File:Kogaru1.jpg and some others. Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [4], [5]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- More accurate description says it all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thought that Hentai and Ecchi can be illustrated which adult cartoon girls, thus avoiding any problems? Damru Tespuru (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It could/can't/shouldn't be done that way, because #1 there aren't such alternatives, #2 it would be lie in the face of the reader since it is part of the style that even older women are depicted as young (kawaii). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to see any pornography in this and besides en:Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States states that there are no issues whatsoever to host any illustrations on Commons as long as they are not obscene. It is also in scope since some of the derivatives are in use. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing but assumptions. Not very confirmative. And what do they say about assumptions? Assumption is the mother of all fuckups! --Paddy (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the license; it doesn't say what you claim. Not only that, the creators of the license have made their intents very clear, and have never made a fuss about not having all versions for GFDL (or the similar in this respect GPL); no one except archivists keeps all versions of Linux source around, and some old versions of GCC have apparently completely disappeared.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- However, that doesn't affect the fact that it is in scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree with this very astute comment by Stefan4 (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep IDONTLIKEIT isn't counted as a reason for deletion. The image is not illegal. The image is free. The image's derivative works are used in articles, and this one also has a potential for that; thus it's in scope. The fact that image uploader has intended these to be used in encyclopaedic articles doesn't mean that we should disqualify any keep votes. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. But also any closing admin should consider that all the "it's not educational" votes hold little merit, due to the same comment of the original uploader. Interesting how you didn't request that yourself. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- ... which is word bending per excellence, as i explained above. Also that the bottom would be missing is a lie. It is there, because the lines are drawn that way. You would never draw lines that way if it would be the intention to show someone without a bottom part, especially younger characters. You see this two thick lines near the underline of the top part? This two lines would be absent. Additionally you would no continue the left bottom line as it was done. Please try to draw a person that isn't wearing a bottom part an look at the lines you would draw. This aren't the same. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I tell you what this is all about. It is about a sad character who needs attention namely Michaeldsuarez. He trolls about and sets out to delete images because his mind tells him it is Pr0n. He lacks in understanding the GFDL and even worse he does not have a clue of the human anatomy. He can not draw either. Do I need to say more? --Paddy (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you should stop trolling Bulwersator (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Niabot and Paddy ('s original "keep" votes). en:Ecchi says, "Works considered as ecchi don't show any sexual intercourse or primary sexual characteristics. Instead it's up to the imagination of the viewer." (my emphasis) Given the above discussion, this image would seem to be a fair example of that! [g] I am dumbfounded that anyone could see "bottomless" nudity in this picture... (And, BTW, strongly disagree with using the fact that there is a new version as an argument for deleting the original; IMO, this is a completely inappropriate argument, regardless of whether it's technically allowed.) - dcljr (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not used in any projects; educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I see a flesh-coloured bikini bottom, which while a bit risque is hardly child pornography. I agree the blue-bottom version is preferable, but that doesn't mean this one should be deleted. Those who are trying to make people leave or threatening them with FBI visits, please cease doing so. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Graphic detail and excess exposure of genitals, failing laws relating Child Pornography. Zeranima da proseticaio (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is this even here is a better question. Laurennial (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because it's COM:INUSE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment it is also a sourcefile for file:Sukumizu Girl recolored.jpg. Arlo James Barnes 20:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep: File is in use.--A09 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, SPAM ALE! ¿…? 14:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text only and is an advert for a company with no other possible use. QU TalkQu 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Individual not identified. Out of scope. QU TalkQu 16:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text only, unused and not an academic or peer reviewed paper QU TalkQu 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I want to delete my files called "Fossas at Jungle World". I misnamed them. I will upload the file when these are gone as Fossas at Madagascar. SmuglyDew (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Moved, you can use template:rename Bulwersator (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text only and not an academic peer reviewed paper. Unused. QU TalkQu 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
no usable quality, not used Avron (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
personal artwork? bad quality, not used Avron (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Unauthorized usage - wihout a permission from the owner of copyright. 78.133.178.94 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is it true that this image was used in "Józef Hen, Nie boję sie bezsennych nocy, Czytelnik, Warsaw 1987" without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994? Bulwersator (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "clear copyright notice"? The photo is undersigned by author's name in a book. The single usage licence was issued just for this title and publisher. Any copying is prohibited.
- Who is the author of this photo? Who is copyright owner if different than author? (So far: it's anonymous claim from someone signed only by his/her IP number). Can you prove that photo had copyright notice required by law on copy passed to publisher? Can you show license agreement between copyright owner and publisher? Can you at least show different pre-1994 publication where this photo was clearly restricted? Before 1994, photos was NOT copyrighted unless explicitly restricted, and the new Polish copyright law only *prolonged* copyright that expired, but not created a new one -- this is rationale for PD-Poland copyright information. Basing only on information from book cover (unless they are different to those filled by Szczebrzeszynski), this photo was not protected by copyright when was published. Keep unless claim is somewhow proved by more evidence. A.J. (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was an anonymous claim, cause till now I didn't have cause to register. But I did it to help our communication. The author of the photo is Danuta B. Łomaczewska. The copyright owner is her heir Mr. Konrad Ciszkowski. According to an agreement signed with him (and previously with Mrs. Łomaczewska) the exclusive right to licence all her photos has Polish photo agency East News. As a person responsible for all East News archives and according to Mr. Ciszkowski request, I kindly ask you to remove this photo. Mrs. Łomaczewska has always restricted usage of her photos in all publications from the beggining of her work as a photographer. BTW, Polish Copyright Law art.36: "the author's economic rights shall expire after the lapse of seventy years from the death of the author" - Mrs. Łomaczewska died three years ago. Lothrain (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Date of death is unrelated (this explanation is used rather than one based on Polish Copyright Law art.36) Bulwersator (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's true. I'm not a lawyer, so I had to refresh those regulations. The photo published in a mentioned book was taken by publisher according to an agreement with Mrs. Łomaczewska from the House of Literature Library in Warsaw belonging to Polish Literary Association (ZLP). You can find this photo there with Mrs. Łomaczewska copyright stamp at the back as she always did with all her photos. How should I prove it? You want me to send you a photograph of that stamp? Lothrain (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it would be enough and in that case the photo should be removed; you could also write to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org about that case (with a photo/scan of copyright notice and link to this deletion debate). My conclusion is Delete. A.J. (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it would be enough and in that case the photo should be removed; you could also write to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org about that case (with a photo/scan of copyright notice and link to this deletion debate). My conclusion is
- It was an anonymous claim, cause till now I didn't have cause to register. But I did it to help our communication. The author of the photo is Danuta B. Łomaczewska. The copyright owner is her heir Mr. Konrad Ciszkowski. According to an agreement signed with him (and previously with Mrs. Łomaczewska) the exclusive right to licence all her photos has Polish photo agency East News. As a person responsible for all East News archives and according to Mr. Ciszkowski request, I kindly ask you to remove this photo. Mrs. Łomaczewska has always restricted usage of her photos in all publications from the beggining of her work as a photographer. BTW, Polish Copyright Law art.36: "the author's economic rights shall expire after the lapse of seventy years from the death of the author" - Mrs. Łomaczewska died three years ago. Lothrain (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:
To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.
|
 |
Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- A czy to zdjęcie zostało opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia prawa autorskiego w "Józef Hen, Nie boję sie bezsennych nocy, Czytelnik, Warsaw 1987"? Bulwersator (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tekst ze strony 4 oryginału książki :Józef Hen Nie boję się bezsennych nocy... Czytelnik 1987:
"Okładkę i kartę tytułową projektował
Jacek Ćwikła
Fotografia autora
Danuta B. Łomaczewska"
Przy nazwisku p. Łomaczewskiej nie ma zastrzeżenia copyright (without a clear copyright notice)
Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Ustawa prawo autorskie z 1952 stanowi: "Art. 2 § 1. Utwór, wykonany sposobem fotograficznym lub do fotografii podobnym, jest przedmiotem prawa autorskiego, jeżeli na utworze uwidoczniono wyraźnie zastrzeżenie prawa autorskiego." Reprodukcja/fotokopia nie stanowi odrębnego utworu (ta zasada z kolei stoi u podstaw tego, że w Polsce można swobodnie rozpowszechniać reprodukcje obrazów z domeny publicznej nie przejmując się osobą fotografa). Ustawa więc stanowi, że do zaistnienia prawa autorskiego wystarczy zastrzeżenie uwidocznione przy powstaniu utworu; istnienie kopii/reprodukcji bez zastrzeżenia tego nie unieważnia. Nie wyobrażam sobie, aby ewentualny spór sądowy w tej sprawie mógl się zakończyć inaczej, niż orzeczeniem na korzyść autora/właściciela praw autorskich.
Short English translation: Szczebrzeszyński cited page 4 of source book, with attribution of photograph to it's author Danuta B. Łomaczewska, but without clear copyright notice. A.J. quotes Polish copyright law of 1952, which states, that copyright for photos exists if copyright notice is present on WORK (utwór). A.J. argues, that reproductions are not separate works in Poland (PD Art OK, so lack of restriction on reproduction does not invalidate copyright for work and in A.J.'s opionion a court would rule in favour of photographer's heirs.
A.J. (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- A lawyer inquired by Wikimedia Poland chapter says it's sufficient if restriction was made on at least one copy of photograph [6]. A.J. (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Dla informacji Szanownych Panów/Pań - niemal w żadnej polskiej publikacji książkowej z lat 70-tych nie można znaleźć zapisu o "wyraźnie zastrzeżonych prawach autorskich". Normą było wówczas zastrzeganie praw za pomocą stempla autorskiego umieszczanego na odwrocie odbitki przesyłanej do wydawnictwa. Tak też było w przypadku fotografii Józefa Hena autorstwa Danuty Łomaczewskiej. Rzecz jasna nie jestem w stanie tego udowodnić pokazując tą konkretną wysłaną tam fotografię. Tak czy inaczej wszystkie fotografie autorstwa pani Danuty Łomaczewskiej były przez nią w pierwszej kolejności przekazywane w jednym egzemplarzu do Biblioteki Domu Literatury w Warszawie. Wszystkie są tam opatrzone stemplem autorskim, którego kopię po wczorajszym przeskanowaniu z ww. miejsca przesłałem na adres "permissions..." - polskie prawo stanowi, że wystarczy w jednym miejscu zastrzec prawa, aby były one chronione, jak słusznie zauważył A.J. Niezależnie od tego, czy wydawca pobrał fotografię z biblioteki (gdzie p. Łomaczewska często odsyłała interesantów), czy też otrzymał autorską odbitkę, jestem na 100% pewny, że był na niej stempel zastrzegający prawa. Innymi słowy wydawca książki mając wiedzę o zastrzeżeniu praw, nie zapisał tego w wydawanej książce, co zresztą było zgodne z ówczesną praktyką. Proszę więc o usunięcie fotografii w trybie natychmiastowym, nie chciałbym bowiem wkraczać na drogę prawną w tak oczywistej sprawie. (Tekst napisałem po polsku, aby jego treść była też jasna dla Szczebrzeszynskiego - ponieważ zamieścił on tu tekst po polsku nie jestem pewien, czy moja angielska odpowiedź byłaby dla niego zrozumiała) Lothrain (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete:
- pl: Rzeczywiście potwierdzam, że został przysłany skan pieczątki tej Pani - nie ma jednak nadal żadnego dowodu, że to omawiane zdjęcie zostało tak opieczętowane. Niemniej, zgodnie z zasadą - że w przypadku gdy istnieją uzasadnione wątpliwości co do legalności zdjęcia - należy je usunąć - powinniśmy to zrobić. Cóż - oto kolejny przykład jak przesadnie restrykcyjne prawo autorskie szkodzi rozwojowi kultury, działając w interesie nawet nie tyle twórcy, ile raczej partykularnemu interesowi pośrednika. Pewnie pośrednik liczy, że kiedyś tam sprzeda prawa do tego zdjęcia za parę złotych i zupełnie nie obchodzą go inne skutki jego działalności :-(
- en: Indeed, I confirm that we have received a scan of the stamps - but there's still no proof that stamp had been put on the questioned picture. However, as if there are reasonable doubts about the legality of the picture we should delete it. This is just yet another example how too restrictive copyright law works against developement of the culture on behalf of particular interest of - even not the creator but middleman. I guess, the middleman thinks it may make some small money on that picture and does not take into account the other effects of its activity :-( Polimerek (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pan Pośrednik spodziewa się pieniędzy za zdjęcie Józefa Hena. Ale tych pieniędzy nie dostanie, bo Wikipedia jest wspólnym dziełem ludzi dobrej woli i działa na zasadzie non-profit, jedyne, co uzyska, to to, że zdjęcie zniknie z 10-milionowego zbioru Wikimedia. Autorka dostała swoje honorarium z wydawnictwa, dalsze roszczenia są już na mocy {{PD-Poland}} bezpodstawne.Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 09:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Pan Pośrednik" nie spodziewa się pieniędzy, a jedynie przestrzegania prawa, co więcej w imieniu posiadacza majątkowych praw autorskich. Może być Pan pewien, że gdyby Pani Danuta żyła, cała ta dyskusja nie miałaby miejsca, bowiem sprawa natychmiast znalazłaby się w sądzie. Taki bowiem miała zwyczaj i bardzo pilnowała praw do swoich fotografii - to była jej praca i podobnie jak Pan chciała z niej czerpać profity. "Ludzie dobrej woli", o których Pan wspomina nie powinni łamać prawa - Państwo działacie na zasadzie non-profit, ale wykorzystując nielegalnie cudzą pracę i twórczość przyczyniacie się do zmniejszenia profitów autorów posiadających takie prawa i żyjących często w trudnych warunkach materialnych. Fakt, że zdjęcie zniknie z Wikipedii jest znacznie mniej bolesny, niż pobieranie tego zdjęcia przez wszystkich chętnych i publikowanie go w prasie z dopiskiem "Wikipedia" z pominięciem praw autorskich. Autorka dostała honorarium od wydawnictwa za jednorazowy nakład książki i tylko do tego konkretnego utworu - to co Pan zrobił, kserując zdjęcie, jest zwykłą kradzieżą. Dlaczego nie skseruje Pan zdjęć Niedenthala, Hartwiga, Nasierowskiej, czy Rolkego z różnych wydawnictw i nie wprowadzi do Wikipedii? Czy fakt posiadania mniej znanego nazwiska powoduje, że może Pan bezkarnie wykorzystywać cudzą pracę?
Odnośnie uwag Polimerka - pieczątkę przesłałem, lecz dla Pana wciąż nie jest to dowodem. Nie potrafię zrobić zdjęcia, które jednocześnie pokaże dwie strony tej samej odbitki. Nie zgodzę się też, że kradzież fotografii służy rozwojowi kultury! Myślę, że Panowie, którzy nigdy nie pracowali w zawodzie fotografa i nie utrzymywali się tylko ze sprzedaży własnych zdjęć nie są tego w stanie zrozumieć. Tak samo jak literaci zarabiają na prawach do własnych utworów, jak filmowcy na filmach, tak fotografowie na fotografiach. I jest to całkowicie normalne, że owoców tej pracy bronią przed bezprawnym wykorzystaniem. Dla Pańskiej informacji, mój partykularny, jak go Pan określa, interes to 30% przychodu z udzielenia licencji. Jest to raczej interes agencji, bo ja nie mam żadnych profitów ze sporu z Państwem. Pozostałe 70% otrzymuje jednak autor i występuję głównie w jego interesie, bo jako osoba odpowiedzialna za wyszukiwanie archiwaliów, za ich digitalizację i opiekę nad zbiorami oraz autorami, nie mogę dopuścić, żeby fotografie żyły własnym życiem w internecie "dla dobra kultury", a emerytowani fotografowie nie mieli za co opłacić czynszu. Za tym wszystkim nie kryją się pieniądze, tylko elementarna przyzwoitość i człowiek. Raz jeszcze proszę o natychmiastowe usunięcie fotografii ze strony Wikipedii.Lothrain (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pani Danuta Łomaczewska zmarła - więc chroni Pan interesy agencji foto i jej spadkobierców... Autor zdjęcia już nic nie dostanie, a jej zdjęcia będą się kurzyły w archiwum jeszcze przez 70 lat od daty jej śmierci. To jest jedyny praktyczny skutek działania prawa autorskiego w tym przypadku. Polimerek (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted photo most probably restricted and therefore not PD. A.J. (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
unclear licensing / permission. Who is the photographer? How old is the photo? That is not really "Own work" as claimed, is it? Saibo (Δ) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please delete this file as another has been uploaded the reflects a better license/permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wx4sno (talk • contribs) 2012-02-27T13:41:23 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested / agreed deletion of unused file. en:File:Asiel Snow, founder of Snowville, VA.jpg seems to be the replacement Saibo (Δ) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
source website http://www.metall.com.cn claims copyright. The image is not PD at all. Diannaa (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work after a XP wallpaper. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern statue, no FOP for statues in USA Bulwersator (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture from 2002 + no COM:FOP in USA for statues. Bulwersator (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of copyrighted work.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture from 2002 + no COM:FOP in USA for statues. Bulwersator (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2004 statue in USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
probably modern (user uploaded multiple modern statues from USA) statue in USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Work by Jon Hair, realised ca. 2006. No freedom of panorama for statues in the USA. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture from 2002 + no COM:FOP in USA for statues. Bulwersator (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As per Commons:Image_casebook#Drawings_based_on_photographs InverseHypercube 09:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As per Commons:Image_casebook#Drawings_based_on_photographs. The painting is based on a picture from a magazine, and would thus count as a derivative work. The artist does not have it on his website anymore, but you can see that many of his paintings are photorealistic. InverseHypercube 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom--Kiran Gopi (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - This poster should be retained because:
- It is designed for the masses and was placed on practically all prominent walls in Andhra Pradesh.
- It was published in all leading regional and national newspapers (independently by the papers - NOT AS AN ADVERTISEMENT)
- It highlights the fact that the ruling Congress leaders tacitly endorse Anna Hazare as a model leader and aspire for his fame as a mass leader.
- People's issues such as Corruption and environment are of paramount importance - even Anna's detractors try be like him and hence his movement is justified.
- The deletion request is made after drastically editing the categories in I uploaded it and pays no thought to the above points. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC).
Question Is it published in free license?--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is under free licence because of the second point I mentioned under Keep Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC).
- I think it is under free licence because of the second point I mentioned under
Info Published in all leading regional and national newspapers can not consider as a free license. Try to get an OTRS ticket from the Owner, since the owner hold the copyright of these image we cannot change the image to a free license. Your questions are welcomed. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- Info I've taken this picture. It is not a scanned copy from any newspaper. Cf: first point I mentioned under Keep. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC).
- Dear Friend we agree this photo is taken by you. But the problem here is you taken photograph from a poster. The copyright owner is who created the original photographs used in the poster. Please see com:DW --Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work after a copyrighted poster. Mass diffusion of the poster doesn't mean it's released under a free licence: we have no evidence modification and commercial reuse are authorised. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Includes pictures of unknown author, out of scope Motopark (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The 'author' of this image has a history of using other people's images within his own without clearance or attribution. It's quite obvious that User:PU1JFC either has no understanding of copyright (other than his own claims, eg the filenames) or wilfully disregards them. I don't know how he/she has avoided being blocked. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
double Stumpjumper130 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Almost identical to File:Glenborrodale 1.JPG, uploader's request, unused. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
screenshot from a commercial game without clear indication of author's permission Wanted (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
screenshot from a commercial game without clear indication of author's permission Wanted (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
screenshot from a commercial game without clear indication of author's permission Wanted (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This is phantasy but not a Zirkel. The description is wrong. It's a full fake. It has nothing to do with Kösener Corps Von Hintenburg (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a Zirkel according to the different pages on WP about Kösener Corps; out of project scope then. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a fake. It is not the Zirkel of any Corps Rhenania. Von Hintenburg (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a Zirkel according to the different pages on WP about Kösener Corps; out of project scope then. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Author is not uploader, no valid source, no permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Taken from website that has no indication of any free license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
this image is present in the web http://kokshetau.narod.ru/mylo/leto2007/images/17123838.jpg (made in 2005-07, copyrighted by Omelchenko) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no license and no source Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It is the same image from this site and others... Maybe a copyright violation? Helder 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.tusbuscadores.com/notiprensa/fotos/Virginia.jpg and http://www.urgente24.com/195549-de-20-dias-de-febrero-19-los-gano-telefeIleana n (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
it is an error, It is a mistake, I do not want that image appears on interent. Benkoln (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The movie poster is a copyvio, the other image is an out of scope personal image --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Uploader's request. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission.
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 01.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 50.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 49.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 48.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 47.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 46.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 45.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 44.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 43.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 42.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 41.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 40.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 38.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 39.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 37.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 36.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 35.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 34.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 33.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 32.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 31.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 30.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 29.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 28.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 27.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 26.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 25.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 24.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 23.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 22.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 21.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 20.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 19.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 18.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 17.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 16.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 15.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 14.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 13.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 12.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 11.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 10.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 08.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 09.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 06.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 07.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 05.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 04.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 03.JPG
- File:NÓS, BRINQUEDOS - 02.JPG
- File:MarMel Logomarca Registrada.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures.
Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cameoproduction (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
- File:Théo en pleine écriture de scénario.jpg
- File:Théo à Carnac sur la plage.jpg
- File:Théo LE MOING sur un tournage.jpg
- File:Théo LE MOING.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leticiaporto (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
- File:Letícia live.jpg
- File:Letícia Porto at 'Festival de La Chanson' in Porto Alegre.jpg
- File:Letícia Porto at Raul Gil´s Tv Show.jpg
- File:Leticia Porto performing live.JPG
- File:On studio.jpg
- File:Perfoming live with Simple Plan.JPG
- File:Letícia Porto singing with Simple Plan in Porto Alegre, Brazil.JPG
- File:Letícia Porto performing live with Simple Plan.JPG
- File:Leticia Porto.JPG
Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Parkleuchten_2012
[edit]DW of the art shown. Permission from the artists needed. /
Zustimmung der Lichtkünstler erforderlich. Panoramafreiheit gilt wohl nicht (ist auch nicht vom Uploader behauptet), da das nur temporär zu sein scheint. Bitte nicht einfach beliebiges filmen, ohne sich Gedanken zu machen, wieso die gezeigten Dinge urheberrechtlich unproblematisch sind.
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 01 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 02 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 03 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 04 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 05 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 06 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 07 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 08 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 09 ies.ogv
- File:Essen - Gruga - Parkleuchten 2012 (oT) 10 ies.ogv
Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is a table copyrighted if temporary red light is on? No!
- Is a crane copyrighted if temporary green light is on? No!
- Is a beer bottle copyrighted if temporary colorful light is on? No!
- So why should people be copyrighted if temporary a rotating spot is on?
- And why should trees be copyrighted if temporary blue and yellow light is on?
- And why should shrubs be copyrighted if temporary blue, green and red light is on?
- And why should trees be copyrighted if temporary light reflected from a disco ball is on?
- To me it looks as if User:Saibo is in a rage for delitions requests and losing track what is appropriate and what not. -- Ies (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gegenfrage: ist ein Fettfleck Kunst? Antwort: wenn er versehentlich entsteht nicht, wenn er von einer Person, die sich als Künstler definiert, absichtlich platziert wird juristisch schon. So wie ich das sehe, ist das eine künstlerische Veranstaltung, jedenfalls spricht die offizielle Seite vom "Lichtkünstler" Wolfgang Flammersfeld und Lichtobjekten. Vorschlag: versuche doch, eine Freigabe vom Künstler zu bekommen, dann wären alle Unklarheiten aus der Welt. Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unless artists permission will be received. It's well above the threshold of originality, and thus these awesome videos are a Derivative Work (the light didn't just happen to fall this way). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as these movies are derived from light art installations which met the threshold of originality. I am sorry that they have to go now but they can be restored as soon as we have received a permission of the copyright holder through OTRS. (Many artists are quite willing to grant such a permission. Please try it. Then, however, the artist(s) should be attributed which was not yet the case.) --AFBorchert (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FeerBorges1999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EminamaDron (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JessiJennings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
- File:Jessi & David Allan Coe.JPG
- File:David Allan Coe & Me 2007.JPG
- File:Jessica Jennings, Hollywood, CA, photo taken by Jake Cafone 1984.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. The first two pics represent country singer David Allan Coe with the uploader, but I hardly see how they could be of use for a project; plus we already have a good free pic of the singer. The last one is a personal pic. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Redundant file created by me but superceded by File: Pseudochelidon eurystomina map.png (I didn't have move rights then Jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment You could have marked it {{duplicate|File:Pseudochelidon eurystomina map.png}} or if you uploaded both versions then {{badname|File:Pseudochelidon eurystomina map.png}}. Perhaps for next time, a much faster process :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I, copyright owner wants delete this image. Mr. Showman (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment After more than 4 years? Free licenses are irrevocable! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And this image is useless. Please, delete.--Mr. Showman (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from www.kotikokki.net Sreejith K (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from www.kotikokki.net Sreejith K (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of no notice/no renewal. Wikimedia counsel has stated, in response to a query about early publicity stills, "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice." (see w:Wikipedia:CCI#Attorney_reply) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- But this is the only good iamge of this actress and also it has a good description of Swanson. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.41.41.209 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no possible to check the no notice claim Denniss (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a better SVG version of this file : File:Montilliez-coat of arms.svg Indeed, the quality of the current picture is really bad and it is not used on any other wiki. --Abaddon1337 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I, copyright owner wants delete this image. Mr. Showman (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment After more than 4 years? Free licenses are irrevocable! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And this image is useless. Please, delete.--Mr. Showman (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
YA modern statue from USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
YA modern statue from USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
YA modern statue from USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Uniform artwork comes from EA Sports' teambuilder website. Search for Tennessee, then compare the uniforms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ursprünglich als S. grandicuspis benannt, was jedoch falsch ist. Es handelt sich vermutlich um eine S. aethiopica? Peter A. Mansfeld 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Redundant file created by me but superceded by File: Pseudochelidon eurystomina map.png (I didn't have move rights then Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture in my father's Wiki page. I do not want it to be sold, I have a case thats someone tried to. I do not feel it is necessary to his page. It is not protected enough. I made a mistake uploading it. Much thanks. Evelyne Adler (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture in my father's Wiki page I created. I do not want it to be sold/distributed. I already had someone try to do so. I wouldlike to have it removed. I do not think it is necessary to have it on his page. Much Thanks. Evelyne Adler (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Quero alterar o tipo de licença de uso. Rosarianakashima (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
image texture of the printed image scan, this file is present in the web http://photo.nur.kz/photo-71029 (added 2 years ago) and in a lot of other sites Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Low quality picture with non-free content distorted by blurring to look even worse than the original version. There are plenty of other good PSP images. —danhash (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyviol!!! Please, see all the upload of this user... Threecharlie (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The helmet artwork comes from EA Sports' teambuilder website. Search for Vanderbilt, then rotate the sample player 90 degrees. There is more than one Vanderbilt submission; the black helmet may have been taken from a different one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
They may look like the team builder website however I did the work. I can do a new vesion of withch will look less 3D if that is what you are looking for. I was not able to find the submission on the EA page and and the black hemets wher not out when ea 12 came out, so sorry or your confsion. 17:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- They came directly from the EA pages, unless there was a common source. They are not similar, they are identical. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
YA modern statue from USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No Panoramafreiheit for statues in the US, and this is recent enough that no copyright notice is needed. If deleted from Commons, this should be offered to en-wp, where inclusion on may qualify as appropriate fair use. cmadler (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Created in 1997, so no copyright notice needed. No FOP in United States for statues. Agree that image should be re-uploaded to enwiki if deemed necessary. ←fetchcomms 01:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Dreivative work of copyrighted material TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#Italy. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- are you sure this is the case? I've been there in this museum and it is expressly allowed to take pictures and disclose, is not "panorama". I do not think goes against the Italian copyright law --Pava (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- If the museum has a special policy allowing photography, this would make it legal to take photos there regardless of FOP laws. Would it still be allowed to use the photos commercially or to make derivative works as required by Commons rules? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have no idea of this, not who makes the picture that decides how it can be used? should verify whether these advertising posters are still under copyright, but I think that a museum decides to give freedom to take account of pictures that can be used also free. If not this is true for all cars in the museum and for installations. Or is there a big difference between things?, difference that I ignore it completely? --Pava (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per TwoWings and Stefan4.--FAEP (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Some museums prohibit photography, others allow it. This generally is not related to the copyright status of the various objects that one might photograph. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If it's actually a movie poster, we need more than a simple "own work". There's also questions of the background photographs. Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Please let me know what's missing. The poster was created upon my ordering by Madi Avishai, on Nov. 2011. The background photographs are all old photos open to the public. They also appear in the film.
Thanks, Ophir Baer (ophirb@amdocs.com).
- So you aren't the author. Movie posters generally need notice to COM:OTRS. Unfortunately, the 1930s and 1940s are not old enough that photos from then are safely public domain, and I suspect, whatever the public usage of those photographs, they are still copyrighted and thus unusable on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. How does this differ from the numerous museum shots you and others have uploaded? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fossils, bones and other animal remains cannot be copyrighted, but sculptures and models are artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would the same objection apply to this model, whose location does not appear to be specified, and which you added? WolfmanSF (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the UK, which does have freedom of panorama, for a full list see[7]. And I didn't take the picture, I just transferred it, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does the fact that the same model has been exhibited in Canada make any difference? Or would the photo need to have been taken in Canada? WolfmanSF (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've wondered about the same for other travelling exhibitions, I would think no, but I am not sure. For example this Dinamation model, free in Germany[8], not free in the US[9]. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does the fact that the same model has been exhibited in Canada make any difference? Or would the photo need to have been taken in Canada? WolfmanSF (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the UK, which does have freedom of panorama, for a full list see[7]. And I didn't take the picture, I just transferred it, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would the same objection apply to this model, whose location does not appear to be specified, and which you added? WolfmanSF (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fossils, bones and other animal remains cannot be copyrighted, but sculptures and models are artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Traveling exhibits would not generally fulfill the requirement that FOP applies (in most countries) only to permanent installations. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture from my personal family album to my father's Wiki page I creeated. I do not want it sold or distributed. I already ahd a case where someone tried to do so. I do not thnk it is necessary on his page. Much Thanks! Evelyne Adler (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems that the uploader did not take the photo. Permission by the photographer is missing. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This painting was drawn by Turgut Akan. Turgut Akan is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as requested. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Kelly (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- of... Bulwersator (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photograph of Huey Long, I would assume --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It should qualify as "Fair use"; in the Louisiana State Exhibit Building in Shreveport. 65.116.31.66 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We don't allow Fair Use images on Commons --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
YA modern statue from USA (no COM:FOP for statues in USA) Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Below threshold of originality. --84.61.167.13 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per 84.61.167.13. Jeriby (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Simple Concrete Box - ineligible for copyright 24.190.185.169 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Although I tend to believe that these are not too simple -- there are 15 of them, not just the one pictured, they are from the early 80s, have no copyright notice and no registration. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
complete inadequate quality, (unused) replaceable by file:Wappen Venningen.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- + (official) bitmap duplicate File:Venningen wappen.gif -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 05:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stfp.net
[edit]You can use the images from this site for whatever purpose you may want - recreational, educational, commercial - without any limitation or restriction, without the obligation of mentioning the source and without the need for a previous consent of mine; also you can edit them, repost them on other sites and so on without any limitation. The images were not modified to contain a logo or a text with my site name. In short: Images are public domain, enjoy them!
— http://ratt.stfp.net/?la=E
Looks OK, but there are no any words about the permissions from authors. Mr. Stefan Puscasu, the creator of this Romanian website, of course, can donate his own works, but how can he donate not own? Photos on this site created by different people and sended to Mr. Puscasu.
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2003.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2003.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2006.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2006.jpg){kind=link}
Kobac (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I uploaded some of those files to Commons myself, and before doing so, I wondered the same thing, because I am very careful about proper licensing. But I found this page on Mr. Puscasu's site, where the following line appears: "I can only accept pictures from their authors; the shots must be free of any restrictions and the author must allow them to be used in any way by anyone". So, he says that people who donate photos must be their authors (copyright holders), and they must allow their free use by anyone without restriction. That seems clear enough to me, and that statement has been on the website for years (I can attest), presumably since its launch in 2005. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but what about the descriptions of these files? There are no direct links, author's names and other information in most of them, so anyway we can't keep them. Of course, you can exlude files uploaded by you from this list if its descriptions are not doubtful. Kobac (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then the descriptions must be updated, not deleted. It's not that hard, if you can't handle the site with Google translate just let me know what files you want updated. I doubt this applies to "most" of them. As you can see, I've passed through all of the pictures and only a few were in that situation.--Strainu (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, in this situation we need to place {{No source since}} to them. Kobac (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then the descriptions must be updated, not deleted. It's not that hard, if you can't handle the site with Google translate just let me know what files you want updated. I doubt this applies to "most" of them. As you can see, I've passed through all of the pictures and only a few were in that situation.--Strainu (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but what about the descriptions of these files? There are no direct links, author's names and other information in most of them, so anyway we can't keep them. Of course, you can exlude files uploaded by you from this list if its descriptions are not doubtful. Kobac (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. If images were uploaded to the site on the understanding that they were being placed into public domain, then there is no rationale for deletion. Useddenim (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's very simple: he requires it in the donation form. So every picture from ratb.stfp.net (and subdomains for other cities) IS in the PD.
However, it's a whole different story with the locomotives site. The disclaimer in the lower part of the page says that the pictures from other authors should be used only for non-commercial purposes, but the upload page (click on "click aici" from the last line in the page if the link doesn't take you to a form) has a big disclaimer saying: "the photos you are uploading will become public domain". I will write to Stefan to clarify this, but in the event the text on the first page is correct, the following images will need to be deleted (I checked every one of them manually):
File:Automotor CFR clasa 79.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR 140.117.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR 230.224.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR 230.516.jpg- File:Locomotiva CFR 231.065.jpg
File:Locomotiva CFR clasa 44.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 45.jpg- File:Locomotiva CFR clasa 68.jpg
File:Locomotiva CFR clasa 69.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 83.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 84.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 86.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 87.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 88.jpgFile:Locomotiva CFR clasa 95.jpg
Do note that most of them can be replaced with PD images from the same site, but the new images might be lower-quality images, therefore I prefer to clarify this with an OTRS ticket.--Strainu (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Steve Morgan and Strainu.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - per previous commenters. While this is annoying, at least the pictures will now be safe from something similar happening in the future. Mr.choppers (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We have received an answer regarding this issue for Stefan Puscasu (OTRS ticket #2012022710007569). He states that for the public transport photos, the notice regarding the PD has been prosent from the begining, so they should be considered as such.
- For the photos of locomotives, only his pictures can be considered as being certainly in the public domain. I have already updated some of the images from my previous messages with free equivalents (crossed above) and also updated the template with the ticket. I am now looking to contact the remaining authors about their pictures.--Strainu (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Mr. Puscasu already asked on his site to all authors to allow these pictures under a PD license, per Steve Morgan's detail above. But if there is still something missing here needed to cover some of those pictures, can he (or us) contact the authors of the remaining pictures and make sure they offer them as PD? It would be a pity to lose them for technicalities, when they already seem 99% PD.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Steve Morgan's comments refer to the public transport site (e.g. buses, trolleys and trams). The locomotives' site is a different story. Basically, new photos are PD, but there is no official record kept for which authors approved this kind of license and which did not. I'm working on contacting the remaining authors to get the rights for these images.--Strainu (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Mr. Puscasu already asked on his site to all authors to allow these pictures under a PD license, per Steve Morgan's detail above. But if there is still something missing here needed to cover some of those pictures, can he (or us) contact the authors of the remaining pictures and make sure they offer them as PD? It would be a pity to lose them for technicalities, when they already seem 99% PD.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- 3 more pictures handled by OTRS tickets.--Strainu (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- keep I think Stefan Puscasu deserves a handsome thank you, for thinking about re-use when he started his site. We extend the assumption of good faith to our contributors, and Stefan Puscasu seems just as deserving of that assumption. Geo Swan (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've received permission for 2 more files. This leaves just 2 files for which I don't know if we'll receive an answer from the authors and should probably be deleted. The old version of the files stroke in my list above also need to be deleted (but the files themselves should be kept).--Strainu (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let's do what Strainu said and then close this request. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Note to closer: Strainu has replaced the crossed out files in the list above with similar PD images. Normally such replacements are not done (with the new images uploaded separately and replaced with CommonsDelinker) - see COM:OVERWRITE. Rd232 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It looks like we have OTRS permission for these files FASTILY (TALK) 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The jersey artwork comes from EA Sports' teambuilder website. Search for Vanderbilt. The numbers on the jerseys were changed from 88 to 00, but otherwise they are the same. The helmet images come from the same place, when rotating the sample player 90 degrees.. The first upload looks to be a version of en:File:SEC-Uniform-Vanderbilt.png, marked non-free there, though possibly only for trademark reasons which would be an incorrect reason for non-free (and its removal from the w:Vanderbilt Commodores football article may cause it to be deleted). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I went to the web page just now and they do look a lot like them so I will do a difrent looking uniform and re-upload them. MDSanker 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do not take them anywhere from the internet. It looks like many of your images have sources elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the fact that they have been reuploaded as "entirely my own work" when they look much like the orginal upload is unconvincing (indeed maybe worrying) --Herby talk thyme 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
old version Jimfbleak (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant file created by me but superceded by File:Ptyonoprogneduigila3 Jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
old version Jimfbleak (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant file created by me but superceded by File:Ptyonoprogneduigila3 Jimfbleak (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Kindle4 26.JPG
- File:Kindle4 24.JPG
- File:Kindle4 21.JPG
- File:Kindle4 22.JPG
- File:Kindle4 20.JPG
- File:Kindle4 15.JPG
- File:Kindle4 16.JPG
- File:Kindle4 12.JPG
- File:Kindle4 14.JPG
COM:DW of the screencontents / artwork (letter circle) on the packaging. See also Commons:Screenshots.
Not so sure about:
- File:Kindle4_26.JPG
- File:Kindle4_16.JPG - artwork or just simple letters(?) (and also of course
The other kindle uploads are probably okay ({{PD-textlogo}} / {{PD-text}} / {{PD-shape}} / {{PD-ineligible}} for the works shown) - but could be borderline.
Saibo (Δ) 21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The letters aren't arranged in a way that it is a readable title, but an artistic arrangement of letters. Some of these pictures could be cropped to still show the device on its own when it isn't showing graphics. File:Kindle4 24.JPG would be OK I think since the text is a small section of a whole, making it like a citation --Vera (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)