Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/03/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Per otrs:2012030610011172. The subject of the photo has emailed OTRS stating that this is a photo of them, which they took and is now being used without their permission. Tiptoety talk 06:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - The ticket linked to above was from an official email address belonging to the copyright holder. Tiptoety talk 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Asclepias as Copyvio for the following reason: cf. introduction of Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada Sreejith K (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it was thus tagged. All is available in detail in the main deletion decision and in the documentation of reference linked from the above category, not to have to repeat the same discussion every time. New uploads of the Duncan Cameron images from LAC were even the object of an additional deletion decision (possibly even including this very image under a different filename [1]). Can you please give the reason why this particular (re)upload of this particular file would require a special discussion? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm closing quickly this DR, it's the same file as mentionned File:Massey-parliament.jpg it was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Duncan Cameron images. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Duncan Cameron images under another name. PierreSelim (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Andreateletrabajo as Copyvio for the following reason: Paint of an alive painter. Not "own work", unlikely free licence. Sreejith K (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Yes, as I already says, this is a work of Hanoos, an alive painter. I don´t know why send this file to a DR when this is a derivative of an copyrighted work, not "Isidoro Castaño own work", specially when DR take days or even month to be closed. --Andrea (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted. {{Copyvio}} Sreejith K (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Description says: Image depicting Survivor India Tribe "Walo Walo". So obviously it is copyrighted Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted. {{Non-free logo}} Sreejith K (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
London Keyes 2011.jpg 188.254.230.210 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. Rosenzweig τ 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The author died in 1943, according to pl.wp. That means PD for life+70 is 2013, not 2012. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Never mind. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Non-free aerial image, looks like it's been screengrabbed from Google Maps/Google Earth Mattgirling (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nominated for speedy. Mattgirling (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already speedily deleted (by Greudin). Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked image. Non-free with copyright info on image Dismas (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This file is not currently licensed on Flickr as CC-BY-2.0, although it was previously reviewed as such. The current license is CC-BY-NC-2.0. Is it possible the license on Flickr has changed since the time this image was reviewed? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: That is the reason we have {{Flickr-change-of-license}} template. Geagea (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The original nominator's concern is valid after all. Thanks to licensing history feature of Flickr, it is now possible to determine if a file had been under a free license before. Looking at the licensing history of this photo, there is no indication that it was under a free license; its original license was Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 2.0), and it is still its license. Therefore, the license tag claim by uploader Igiveup (talk · contribs) is false. License review failed, false commercial CC licensing claim by Flickr importer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Bo FOP in France. Sculptor Charles Georges Cassou died in 1947. Coyau (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Restored by Léna Platonides (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I wanna be a DJ SPAM Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I wanna be a DJ SPAM Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Correction - IS a DJ.. Agree'd though, this picture is an old photo and bad representative of his professional DJing business.
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. No permission, see watermark. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete it please. I no longer need this.
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal (photoshop) picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wie bereits früher geschrieben: Es handelt sich hier um eine 2-dimensionale Reproduktion, für die kein neues Urheberrecht entsteht. Dadurch handelt es sich bei der Weiternutzung auch nicht um eine Urheberrechtsverletzung.
- This is a two-dimensional reproduction of a work from around 1650. The reproduction is usually not seen as a creative work and there's no new copyright for it. H.-P. Haack falsly denies PD for the original engraving by Matthäus Merian, who died in 1650 (nearly 362 years have passed since). If the work would be still in (a non-free) copyright, H.-P. Haack couldn't have released photos of it under a free license. --René Mettke (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. The case is pretty much clear (claiming a copyright here is considered as copyfraud), but to calm down H.-P. Haack I've provided another scan from the Deutsche Fotothek. --32X (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 11:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
copy of http://www.hindu.com/lf/2005/03/09/stories/2005030900440200.htm Sanandros (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This has no educational character. GeorgHH • talk 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep einmal gegebene Lizenzen können nicht mehr zurück genommen werden, Zudem bezweifle ich, das man mit dem Besitz an einem weit verbreiteten Kupferstich die Urheberrechte daran erwirbt. Vielmehr gilt hier eindeutig pd-old, ich sehe nicht mal einen Grund für ne Namensnennung vom Fotografen... --LutzBruno (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- PS: In diesem Zusammenhang halte ich es für Sinnvoll, sämtliche uploads des H.-P.Haack zu überprüfen. Wie in dem File:Leipzig Neues Theater 1898.jpg klar wird, ist als Urheber "Foto H.-P.Haack" angegeben, der aber nach eigener Vita erst 1940 geboren wurde!!! Der wirkliche Fotograf wird hier nicht nur verschwiegen, es wird sogar gefordert, das das somit falsch Beschriebe Werk sei vom Urheber H.-P.Haack, welcher auch noch auf Nennung seinen Namens besteht, und den des wahren Urhebers verschweigt... (Der wahre Urheber ist übrigens samt Verlag noch lesbar im Bild zu erkennen) Ich halte diese Lizenzierung für bedenklich! --LutzBruno (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Blatant en:copyfraud; Haack does not own the copyright on 17th century prints. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [2] Hystrix (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [3] Hystrix (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [4] Hystrix (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [5] Hystrix (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Das fotografierte Objekt ist aufgrund seines Alters gemeinfrei, aber nicht das Foto. Meine Buchfotografien werden als Objektfotografie anerkannt. Wenigstens das. Die Fotographie von alten graphischen Blättern - mehr Handwerk als Kunst - ist ebenfalls Objektfotografie. Ich wäre nicht eingeschnappt, wenn alle fotografierten Bilder ("zweidimensional") von mir gelöscht würden. Wenn Commons die Bilder behalten will, dann aber nur, wenn die Fotos als Objektfotografie eingestuft werden und ich genannt werde. Vorschlag: "Foto Wikimdeia commons H.-P.Haack" oder "Foto Wikimedia H.-P.Haack". Man wird kaum einen anderen Sammler finden, der Fotos seiner Raritäten der Öffentlichkeit kostenlos übergibt. Wenn er das macht, sollte man ihm gönnen, dass er als Fotograf genannt wird. - - H.-P.Haack (Discussão) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [6] Hystrix (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der handkolorierte Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Die Selbstermächtigung von WIKIMEDIA COMMONS: "Diese Datei wurde als bar jeglicher bekannter Einschränkungen des Urheberrechts, einschließlich verbundener und benachbarter Rechte erkannt" zählt vor deutschen Gerichten nicht. Diese Erklärung ist ein Bluff. Wenn WIKIMEDIA aberkennt, ist das noch lange nicht rechtsverbindlich und schützt den Raubkopierer (der mich als Bildgeber nicht nennt) keineswegs. Solange über meinen Löschungsantrag nicht entschieden ist, darf jedermann meine Bilder verwerten, sofern er mich mit "Foto H.-P.Haack" nennt, meinetwegen mit "Foto H.-P.Haack Wikimedia commons". Sreejith K (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Das fotografierte Objekt ist aufgrund seines Alters gemeinfrei, aber nicht das Foto. Meine Buchfotografien werden als Objektfotografie anerkannt. Wenigstens das. Die Fotographie von alten graphischen Blättern - mehr Handwerk als Kunst - ist ebenfalls Objektfotografie. Ich wäre nicht eingeschnappt, wenn alle fotografierten Bilder ("zweidimensional") von mir gelöscht würden. Wenn Commons die Bilder behalten will, dann aber nur, wenn die Fotos als Objektfotografie eingestuft werden und ich genannt werde. Vorschlag: "Foto Wikimdeia commons H.-P.Haack" oder "Foto Wikimedia H.-P.Haack". Man wird kaum einen anderen Sammler finden, der Fotos seiner Raritäten der Öffentlichkeit kostenlos übergibt. Wenn er das macht, sollte man ihm gönnen, dass er als Fotograf genannt wird. - - H.-P.Haack (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jetzt ist die Etikettierung "gemeinfrei" wieder hoch geladen. Nun bleibt's aber dabei. - -H.-P.Haack (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [7] Hystrix (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Das fotografierte Objekt ist aufgrund seines Alters gemeinfrei, aber nicht das Foto. Meine Buchfotografien werden als Objektfotografie anerkannt. Wenigstens das. Die Fotographie von alten graphischen Blättern - mehr Handwerk als Kunst - ist ebenfalls Objektfotografie. Ich wäre nicht eingeschnappt, wenn alle fotografierten Bilder ("zweidimensional") von mir gelöscht würden. Wenn Commons die Bilder behalten will, dann aber nur, wenn die Fotos als Objektfotografie eingestuft werden und ich genannt werde. Vorschlag: "Foto Wikimdeia commons H.-P.Haack" oder "Foto Wikimedia H.-P.Haack". Man wird kaum einen anderen Sammler finden, der Fotos seiner Raritäten der Öffentlichkeit kostenlos übergibt. Wenn er das macht, sollte man ihm gönnen, dass er als Fotograf genannt wird. - - H.-P.Haack (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Blatant en:copyfraud; Haack does not own the rights on 17th century prints. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [8] Hystrix (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [9] Hystrix (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Werden zweidimensionale Vorlagen (Gemälde, Fotos, Zeichnungen, Kupferstiche, Radierungen, Holzschnitte, …) lediglich reproduziert, sind die dadurch entstandenen Aufnahmen nach herrschender Meinung in Deutschland nicht selbst urheberrechtlich geschützt. Siehe de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht schützbare Fotos (Reproduktionen) – 2-D-Regel. Auch nach offizieller Ansicht der Wikimedia Foundation sind originalgetreue Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler gemeinfreier Werke gemeinfrei und Behauptungen des Gegenteils ein Angriff auf das Konzept der Gemeinfreiheit. Zu Details siehe Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Diese fotografische Reproduktion wird daher auch als gemeinfrei angesehen. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [10] Hystrix (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Sreejith K (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Tm (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[[
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [11] Hystrix (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Die Selbstermächtigung von WIKIMEDIA COMMONS gemeinfrei ohne Nennung des Bildgebers zählt vor deutschen Gerichten nicht. Diese Erklärung ist ein Bluff. Wenn WIKIMEDIA aberkennt, ist das noch lange nicht rechtsverbindlich und schützt den Raubkopierer (der mich als Bildgeber nicht nennt) keineswegs. Solange über meinen Löschungsantrag nicht entschieden ist, darf jedermann meine Bilder verwerten, sofern er mich mit "Foto H.-P.Haack" nennt, meinetwegen mit "Foto H.-P.Haack Wikimedia commons". Sreejith K (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The same applies to File:Das Georgen-Hospital in Leipzig 1804.JPG and File:St. georg leipzig 1749.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [12] Hystrix (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Die Selbstermächtigung von WIKIMEDIA COMMONS gemeinfrei ohne Nennung des Bildgebers zählt vor deutschen Gerichten nicht. Diese Erklärung ist ein Bluff. Wenn WIKIMEDIA aberkennt, ist das noch lange nicht rechtsverbindlich und schützt den Raubkopierer (der mich als Bildgeber nicht nennt) keineswegs. Solange über meinen Löschungsantrag nicht entschieden ist, darf jedermann meine Bilder verwerten, sofern er mich mit "Foto H.-P.Haack" nennt, meinetwegen mit "Foto H.-P.Haack Wikimedia commons". Sreejith K (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [13] Hystrix (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by H.-P.Haack as Speedy. Begründung des Löschungsantrags: Weder der Kupferstich (Eigentum von H.-P.Haack) noch das Foto © H.-P.Haack sind gemeinfrei. Anderslautende Lizenzen der WIKIMEDIA-FONDATION verstoßen gegen deutsches Urheberrecht. Wegen dieser Ungesetzlichkeit ziehe ich mein Foto zurück. Die Selbstermächtigung von WIKIMEDIA COMMONS: "Diese Datei wurde als bar jeglicher bekannter Einschränkungen des Urheberrechts, einschließlich verbundener und benachbarter Rechte erkannt" zählt vor deutschen Gerichten nicht. Diese Erklärung ist ein Bluff. Wenn WIKIMEDIA aberkennt, ist das noch lange nicht rechtsverbindlich und schützt den Raubkopierer (der mich als Bildgeber nicht nennt) keineswegs. Solange über meinen Löschungsantrag nicht entschieden ist, darf jedermann meine Bilder verwerten, sofern er mich mit "Foto H.-P.Haack" nennt, meinetwegen mit "Foto H.-P.Haack Wikimedia commons" Sreejith K (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Misunderstanding of the rules [14] Hystrix (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No educational content. GeorgHH • talk 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackiespix/45833070/>. The author of the photograph has mailed OTRS claiming ownership. Tiptoety talk 05:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation of http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackiespix/45833070/ . No credit given. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 04:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Lifeprojectaccount (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is image with better detail Kaidor (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Works by Paul Landowski
[edit](edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FacultyMedecineParisSP.JPG
- File:Ferdinand foch grabmal.jpg
- File:Tombeau Marechal Foch.jpg
- File:Memorial Henri Farman.jpg
- File:Paris Pont de tournelle abril 2008 sainte genevieve Landowski.jpg
- File:Place Édouard-VII, Paris, 1914.jpg
- File:Senlis (60), monument des Spahis (rue Bellon - rempart de l'Escalade).jpg
Derivative works of sculptures by Paul Landowski (d. 1961) situated in France. There's no freedom of panorama in France. I don't think any of these falls under de minimis. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum:
- File:Paris XVI Anciens combattants (2).jpg
- File:Paul Landowski - Farabeuf.jpg
- File:Boulogne-Billancourt - Collège Paul Landowski - 1.JPG Here the statue is only a small part of the picture, but it was included on purpose, so I don't think de minimis applies either. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think those two photos while not categorized are not really de minimis:
- --Coyau (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I object! No sensible reason has been given for the request to delete these images! They seem to have been uploaded by the respective takers, and the one showing Place Eduard VII is clearly very old and should be in the public domain. I see no reason to delete these images. --MaxM (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- It may look very old, but it's not. It was sculpted by Paul Landowski, who died 51 years ago. These sculptures won't be in the public domain before 1st January 2032. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the image which was taken in 1914! Not the sculpture. --MaxM (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- It may look very old, but it's not. It was sculpted by Paul Landowski, who died 51 years ago. These sculptures won't be in the public domain before 1st January 2032. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:DW and COM:FOP#France, derivative works without Freedom of panorama PierreSelim (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Victory bridge (Most Pobedy)
[edit]There is no FOP in Russia, so we can't keep these photos of monuments. Probably we can transfer them to Russian Wikipedia.
- File:Viktory bridge. Decorative composition.jpg
- File:Viktory bridge. Man statue.jpg
- File:Viktory bridge. Woman statue.jpg
Kobac (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I will upload better quality photos to Russian Wikipedia. --Andreykor (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: currently no freedom of panorama in Russia. AVRS (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
non-correct license (fair-use for public politician) Scorpion-811 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Famille Roquefeuil de Versols.svg McZusatz (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep another version was uploaded. This file can be kept. --McZusatz (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Famille Roquefeuil de Versols.svg McZusatz (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep another version was uploaded. This file can be kept. --McZusatz (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Famille Roquefeuil de Versols.svg McZusatz (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep another version was uploaded. This file can be kept. --McZusatz (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
no source (neither here nor at en-WP), removed from article there as part of a copyvio.[15] Lupo 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Already deleted by Jameslwoodward --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
We do not know where this photo originally came from so how can we know that the GFDL is correct? MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused, useless, low quality drawing created by unnotable person. Out of scope. Bulwersator (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, no EV George Chernilevsky talk 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 34#MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js RE rillke questions? 00:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved. -- RE rillke questions? 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF with multiple results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
User page who's user does not exist. Either this page is move in the appropriate location (User:Lansbricae/common.js) or deleted. RE rillke questions? 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
User page who's user does not exist. Either this page is move in the appropriate location (User:Lansbricae/common.css) or deleted. RE rillke questions? 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
JavaScript of non-existing user. Merge into User:Daniel/monobook.js & delete. RE rillke questions? 00:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not the own work of User:Nicolasblondeau High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is out of scope anyway. --McZusatz (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: http://slovania.net/index.php?clanek=tank&id=8 Denniss (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This pictures shows a french military site ; shooting this site has been prohibited from the Bay of Brest and some municipalities around here (see (in french) http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/reglementation/arretes/1970-004.pdf). // Cette photo représente un site militaire français dont la prise de vue est interdite depuis la rade de Brest et quelques communes alentours (cf http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/reglementation/arretes/1970-004.pdf). Nicolas Pawlak (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly an illegal picture that doesn't respect local laws. Pymouss Let’s talk - 21:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Russia, so we can't keep these photos of monuments. Probably we can transfer them to Russian Wikipedia.
- File:Бременские музыканты в Хабаровске 4.JPG
- File:Бременские музыканты в Хабаровске 3.jpg
- File:Бременские музыканты в Хабаровске 2.jpg
- File:Бременские музыканты в Хабаровске 1.jpg
- File:Трус, Балбес и Бывалый в Хабаровске.JPG
- File:Академик Павловский Е. Н. (Хабаровск).jpg
- File:Уссурийск, здание городской администрации.jpg
- File:Памятник Николаю Задорнову в Хабаровске.JPG
- File:Памятник Малиновскому в Хабаровске.JPG
Kobac (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Хозяин Джимбо не разрешает? А вы что, Кобак, по-русски писать разучились? Фотки непригодны для коммерческого использования? При продаже могут возникнуть проблемы у белого хозяина? Загружу в русские статьи в некоммерческом виде, перетопчется ваш викисклад. Граждане России имеют право бесплатно смотреть на всё, что находится на улицах и "разрешения" у "авторов" не спрашивать. И "авторы" вякнуть не посмеют. Потому как их "права" ничуть не нарушаются от бесплатного просмотра. Государство с ними уже за все расплатилось. Да, кстати, просьба Артему Каримову свой голос не подавать, нового он все равно ничего не придумает. Опять какую-нибудь глупость про коммуняк напишет--Andshel (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Во-первых, я не «Кобак». Вы, гражданин, если чего-то не знаете, то лучше не делайте. Такими как вы забиты российские суды. Стоят и мямлят: «Ой, а я и не знал, что это противоречит ГК! Да подумаешь — права каких- то скульпторов!» Хотя, конечно, если ты вор по жизни, то законами можно и подтереться. Kobac (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Да? И много забито? И что же он мне скажет? Что нельзя его статую на улице сфотографировать и всем показать бесплатно? Где написано, что нельзя это сделать за бесплатно? Как придет в суд, так и уйдет. Обломится, урод. Только суд с него пошлину за свою работу стребует. Много случаев можете привести, чтобы эти "авторы" из-за бесплатного показа своих творений что-то поимели с простых людей? С коммерсантов ещё могут что-то стребовать, а так - ничего и никогда. А они и не дураки, по таким мелочам в суд не полезут. Себе дороже.
Вор по жизни, говоришь? А что я украл? Кому я нанёс своими действиями материальный ущерб? Ни копейки не украдено. Ни одно моё действие не попадает под статью Уголовного кодекса. И Гражданского. Вот и подотрись. И суд подотрётся этим. Суды забиты, такими как я... Напугали бабу органом. --Andshel (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- ГК РФ читайте. По остальному - здесь не форум. Обсуждений справедливости/не справедливости законодательства РФ здесь не будет. Закон существует - Вы его будете выполнять. Или уйдёте из проекта. Третьего не дано.
- Браво, на американский склад анонимка пришла, да ещё с угрозами. Как в лучших советских традициях. Не знаю, как в буржуинии, но в России анонимки не рассматриваются. "Или уйдёте из проекта. Третьего не дано." Ты вначале зарегистрируйся, пользу какую-нибудь людям принеси, а потом и угрожай. Пользы от тебя как от козла молока, только анонимное скрежетание зубами. Ты никто и звать тебя никак. Пошел-ка ты... В рот всем анонимщикам компот, большой и толстый.--Andshel (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- К тому же, Вы соверенно не понимаете смысла свободной лицензии, под которой опубликовали фото. Даже не прочитали её условия. В частности, фото под этой лицензии возможно использовать с целью получения коммерческой выгоды.--178.123.246.113 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- А меня это не волнует, с какой целью будет использована моя фотография. Да я и проследить не могу. Там где-то у вас отказ от ответственности есть, допишите сюда. Меня не волнует, какие проблемы у комерсантов есть или будут, пусть сами решают свои проблемы. А вашего Джоника я не заставляю торговать чужими фотографиями, расчищаете ему склад, отделяете на "годный для продажи" и "негодный". Я не несу никакой ответственности за возможное использование моих фотографий, вот так-то. (Можно Машку за ляжку, козу на возу и телегу с разбегу, как говорил мой знакомый капитан третьего ранга).--Andshel (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The files in question in fact violate FoP. Blacklake (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named BC1 was created in 1989 Tangopaso (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork Dame Lune (=Moon lady) was created in 1977 Tangopaso (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork Vive-le-Vent (=long life to the Wind) was created in 1989 Tangopaso (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo for Norwegian University of Science and Technology – Danmichaelo (δ) 16:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Looks {{PD-textlogo}} to me --Sreejith K (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I'll apply PD-textlogo JuTa 12:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Incorrectly superseded version of File:ChannelMaster.jpg by Ziggyhorse. This PNG is exactly the same as the JPEG version, only saved as PNG and still includes compression artifacts. The mentioned JPEG has already been superseded once before by Bugs9916 with File:ChannelMaster.png, which is also exactly the same as this image. —danhash (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 18:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Missing date of publication. Americophile 01:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Artists personally asked for deletion becaus she doesn't like the picture. I'm the author BarbD (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Asked for deletion. I'm the author. BarbD (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Ophelia2 as Copyvio for the following reason: picture of 3D work of art not in PD Sreejith K (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Ophelia2 as Copyvio for the following reason: picture of 3D work of art not in PD Sreejith K (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Ophelia2 as Copyvio for the following reason: picture of 3D work of art not in PD Sreejith K (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by M0tty as Copyvio for the following reason: Architect died in 1956, no-FOP in Belgium Sreejith K (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Funfood as Copyvio for the following reason: Website http://www.trenews.net/Article.aspx?ID=4858 claims copyright Sreejith K (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Irrtum meinerseits Bibelschmeisser (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Due to the size of the image, it looks likely to have been copied from a website. TinEye shows the same image used on other websites: http://www.tineye.com/search/b8eea18f5c846483d40e6bd4fd2ba4e0b465771b/?sort=size&order=desc JD554 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Incomplete deletion request initiated by the uploader (Mimosfinn). The rationale provided was: "reason". The uploader also tagged the file for speedy deletion with the rationale: "deletion". —LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We do not know where this photo originally came from so how can we know that the GFDL is correct? MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We do not know where this photo originally came from so how can we know that the GFDL is correct? MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No proper rights Reggio99 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Can easily replaced by {{TeX}}: McZusatz (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_um_1650.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3AMassey-parliament.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_um_1650.jpg){kind=link}
_um_1650.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_um_1650.jpg){kind=link}
_um_1650.jpg){kind=link}
,_monument_des_Spahis_(rue_Bellon_-_rempart_de_l%27Escalade).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
a person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a 1970 statue in Yerevan. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1963. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 2009. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1999. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Restored: now FOP in Armenia - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=96202242--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1995. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1987. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1987. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Restored: now FOP in Armenia - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=96202242--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1980. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1963. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Installed in 1974" according to Google Translate's interpretation of the Armenian description. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Google Translate's interpretation of the Armenian description tells that this was created in 1943. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Google Translate of the Armenian description, installed in 1999. Delete per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union. Stefan4 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Ocorreu um engano ao carregar este ficheiro. Fúlvio (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
near-duplicate of File:Homedepotcenter.png 67.101.5.225 02:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:'The Light Inside', Site-specific installation of Neon light, gypsum board, plaster, and glass by James Turrell, 1999, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.JPG
[edit]
This file was tagged by QuiteUnusual as Copyvio for the following reason: This is a work of art by James Turrell who is still alive. The photographer has created a derivative work that is not capable of public domain release without the original artists permission. It is not installed in a public place. Sreejith K (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:"PLAN CONSENSUADO DE RECONCILIACIÓN NACIONAL Y RESTAURACIÓN DEMOCRÁTICA PARA GUINEA ECUATORIAL".pdf
[edit]Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Famille Roquefeuil de Versols.svg McZusatz (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
существует более качественная замена: File:TUZ (volgograd metrotram station) 05.JPGRedboston (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
_05.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Нет энциклопедической значимости. Есть более интересное видео по работе избирательной комисии - File:Russian presidential elections, 2012. UIK 0311, Volgograd 04.ogv.Redboston (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Нет энциклопедической значимости. Есть более интересное видео по работе избирательной комисии - File:Russian presidential elections, 2012. UIK 0311, Volgograd 04.ogv.Redboston (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Нет энциклопедической значимости. Есть более интересное видео по работе избирательной комисии - File:Russian presidential elections, 2012. UIK 0311, Volgograd 04.ogv.Redboston (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not creative commons-licensed Smile4ever (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, I have creative commons-licensed it now. Jer101jer (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not creative commons licensed - Microsoft won't allow this screenshot unless if you mean fair use - only used on Wikipedia EN. Commons doesn't accept fair use. You didn't make the screenshot or the software related to it. Smile4ever (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. It's proprietary software. -Mardus (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Azerbaijan. Americophile 20:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an issue. Azerbaijani government makes no objection to taking pictures of monuments and posting them on the Internet. --Grandmaster 09:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Article 20. Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place
The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.
Maddə 20. Sərbəst giriş üçün daim açıq olan yerlərdə əsərlərdən istifadə
Müəllifin və ya müəlliflik hüquqlarının digər sahibinin razılığı olmadan və müəllif haqqı vermədən, əsərin təsvirinin surətçıxarma və ya kütləvi bildiriş üçün əsas obyekt olduğu və ya əsərin surətinin kommersiya məqsədilə istifadə olunduğu hallar istisna olmaqla, sərbəst giriş üçün daim açıq olan yerlərdə qoyulmuş memarlıq, fotoqrafiya, təsviri sənət əsərlərinin surətinin çıxarılmasına və ya kütləvi bildirişinə yol verilir.
As long as I understand, nobody can use this image for commercial purpose.
Takabeg (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and Takabeg's analysis. Regarding Grandmaster's argument, see COM:PRP. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of file file:Blason Pierre de Cabrol de Moute.svg which again is a duplicate of file:Blason Pierre-de-Cabrol-de-Mouté.svg. Magasjukur2 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --McZusatz (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Map contains errors. The time frame is 1989-1993 (the U.S. presidency of George H.W. Bush), and the map seems to show political borders at the end of this time, e.g. former Yugoslavia is split (wars resulting in split started in 1991), as well as former Czechoslovakia (peacefully split on 1 January 1993). However, some things in this map are simply wrong. It seems to be an attempt at a post-USSR map, but it combines the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine into one single entity west of Russia. Such a country of "Baltic-Belarus-Ukraine" never existed. The same goes for the former republics of the Soviet Union in Central Asia, such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc., which are also combined into one country of impressive size, which of course never existed, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- By chance I have stumbled upon a DR for a different map, which was closed as "Kept" by Jameslwoodward with the comment: "Please understand that Commons firm policy is that we do not judge the accuracy of maps such as this one. Commons is a repository of images. Whether or not to use this image is up to editors on the various Wikipedias and other users throughout the world. We simply keep it here so that it can be used. We do not attest to its accuracy, nor will we delete it if some parties believe it is inaccurate." - So, if this is the "firm policy", I suppose that my deletion request in this case was a mistake. However, I see no educational value in this clearly erroneous map and it's currently not used by any Wikipedia, so maybe it could be viewed as out of scope, nevertheless? After all, in this case it's a map where not just "some parties" may believe that it is inaccurate, but which shows clearly wrong borders for well-known countries. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete My comment quoted above was about a map that appeared to me to have different points of view depending on the viewer's political position, so that deciding whether the map was "correct" was controversial. Although we don't usually delete a map which some people, based on their political point of view, think is correct and other people think is wrong, we certainly don't keep maps that are just wrong. This is in much the same category as maps of the 55 United States or the 12 countries using the Euro in 1990. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Note that the woman is wearing several items of clothing/accoutrement that could theoretically make the image useful in illustrating something. Unless it's a copyvio or not licensed properly (which doesn't appear to be the case), I don't see why it should be deleted. - dcljr (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This page must not be delated because it contains useful information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.202.46 (talk) 2012-04-14 21:39:53 (UTC)
- I do not think this file should be deleted, because for us equatorial guinean people is very important. Certainly the person seeking delation of this file is the dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, or someone next to him. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.202.46 (talk) 2012-04-14 22:20:37 (UTC)
- I'm not that dictator. More accusations like this may lead to a block. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: This file appears to violate Commons:Licensing, because it appears to be covered by the Berne Convention, without evidence that the author gives us an explicit license to copy and modify it. Details (since 81.178.202.46 might not understand why): en:List of parties to international copyright agreements says that Equiatorial Guinea signed the Berne Convention on June 26, 1997; the United Kingdom has been a signatory for 100+ years. The Berne Convention is an international treaty that says that the author has copyright even if there is no copyright notice on the work — almost all nations are now part of this treaty. This work appears to be from January 2010 and to have been published in either Equatorial Guinea or (based on dates in "Rafael Evita Ika y Guinea Ecuatorial") the United Kingdom, by a citizen of Equatorial Guinea (Rafael Evita Ika). As far as I can tell (with Google Translate), this document does not request distribution, and contains no license. (Also: It also says "Propuesta de Manifesto", which sounds to me like a draft version, not the final version. I don't know Spanish well enough to be sure. It may be that this version was not intended to be distributed to the public.) All that said: I don't think this document is out of COM:SCOPE, except that it is unlicensed. (It may be more appropriate for Wikisource, but it would still have to have a good license first.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir, Mr. Rafael Evita Ika is the President of Etomba a Ndowe- the Ndowe Peolpe Party. Most of our people are in our country under a harsh dictatorship of Mr. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Our active members are scattered across the world because of the tyranny of the rulers of Equatorial Guinea. The publication of this document conforms to the wishes of our organization and approved by our president Mr. D. Rafael Evita Ika, and this document has never been published in the web page you mentioned, however, other Mr. Rafael Evita Ika's works has been published in that web page. For other information in order to verify what I am saying, please write my name in the google search machine, and see who I am. My name is "Angel Madjodi", and I am the Speaker of Etomba a Ndowe-Ndowe People's Party of Equatorial Guinea. Thank you
Deleted: Uploader is not author and there is no evidence that we have the permission of the author. Commons is a repository of images, not recent documents. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I am Rafael Evita Ika, Author of all documents constaining my name as the author. I am also the President of Etomba a Ndowe. These files have been uploaded by people plainly authorized to do so. Authirization was granted beforee uploading all files. Thak you
File:ASPECTOS LEGALES, CAPACIDAD JURÍDICA Y MECANISMOS EFECTIVOS QUE AVALAN LA INHABILITACIÓN DE TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO COMO PRESIDENTE DE GUINEA ECUATORIAL.pdf
[edit]Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think this file should be deleted, because for equatorial guinean people is very important. Certainly the person seeking delation of this file is the dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, or someone next to him — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.202.46 (talk) 2012-04-14 22:13:18 (UTC)
- I'm not that dictator. More accusations like this may lead to a block. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: This file appears to violate Commons:Licensing, because it appears to be covered by the Berne Convention, without evidence that the author gives us an explicit license to copy and modify it. Mostly the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manifiesto politico am.bi.bu.nd.fa. jl29-01-11 bcn.pdf — see there for more detail. Appears to be a paper proposing a solution to a large political matter in Equatorial Guinea. --Closeapple (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader is not author and there is no evidence that we have the permission of the author. Commons is a repository of images, not recent documents. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: Uploader is not author, but he has the permission of the author. In the same manner uploader has my permission to upload all the other documents. I am the author, Rafael Evita Ika
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
According to source site the painter died in 1964 so it can't be PD-Art. Plushy (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi. Aren't two dimensional images that are widely distributed in a state museum considered a public domain? Thanks. Oleg (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know about the specifics of russian law but the current license says it's in public domain because the artist died 70+ years ago so it's certainly wrong. And sorry about the confusion I meant PD-Art|PD-Old of course which is default for PD-Art.Plushy (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- No issues. You may take a look here (and use Google Translate for the third line next to {{PD-Art}}). Thanks. Oleg (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It only means that if the painting is in PD then the photo of it should be also PD. The question is is the painting in Public Domain in the first place. PD-ART is combined with Template:PD-old/ru in this file's desc and it hasn't been 70 years since the author died.Plushy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- In such case let's delete it. Thanks. Oleg (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It only means that if the painting is in PD then the photo of it should be also PD. The question is is the painting in Public Domain in the first place. PD-ART is combined with Template:PD-old/ru in this file's desc and it hasn't been 70 years since the author died.Plushy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- No issues. You may take a look here (and use Google Translate for the third line next to {{PD-Art}}). Thanks. Oleg (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know about the specifics of russian law but the current license says it's in public domain because the artist died 70+ years ago so it's certainly wrong. And sorry about the confusion I meant PD-Art|PD-Old of course which is default for PD-Art.Plushy (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It has been suggested that this is not {{PD-USGov}}. See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Pictures#Copyright issues. Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per the linked discussion (which I took part in). In brief: this image was listed by the book it was taken from as being photographed by Albert Fenn (so is this image on the English Wikipedia), and not as a work of the US government. Double sharp (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Double Sharp. At least on enwiki, this is not currently used in the mainspace. StringTheory11 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This file is an scaled down exact duplicate of File:Coat of arms of the President of Macedonia.svg. They were uploaded on the exact same date (infact, the SVG was uploaded 26 minutes before the PNG), and are the exact same thing except for their format. I tried to do a dupe tag twice where the file would be universally replaced and then deleted, but User:M0tty and User:Sreejithk2000 seem to disagree, so let them now explain how they think this is not a duplicate. ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The rule is that we do not delete a file the duplicate of which is a SVG. Regards. --M0tty (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true.I've nominated for deletion countless scaled down duplicates that are uploaded after the SVG and they're always deleted. Just today see 1, 2 and 3. And there's plenty of other examples. What you're refering to is the practice of not deleting raster files that are superceded at a later date by an SVG. But that's not the case here because this was uploaded after the SVG. You still haven't explained why you felt the file is "Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate", and you now admit it is. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I am against deleting a PNG file as a duplicate of an SVG file unless the PNG file was created from the vector equivalent. That being said, I see that the commons policy is not largely different. See the first bulletted point here Commons:Duplicate#Duplicates. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- The practice has always been to not delete raster files when a vector version is uploaded after it. In this case, the vector was uploaded first, and the PNG is a duplicate of the SVG, made from the same source. It has to go. I can give you a list as long as my arm of raster duplicates made from an SVG already here, and deleted for that reason, this is no different. Fry1989 eh? 19:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I am against deleting a PNG file as a duplicate of an SVG file unless the PNG file was created from the vector equivalent. That being said, I see that the commons policy is not largely different. See the first bulletted point here Commons:Duplicate#Duplicates. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true.I've nominated for deletion countless scaled down duplicates that are uploaded after the SVG and they're always deleted. Just today see 1, 2 and 3. And there's plenty of other examples. What you're refering to is the practice of not deleting raster files that are superceded at a later date by an SVG. But that's not the case here because this was uploaded after the SVG. You still haven't explained why you felt the file is "Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate", and you now admit it is. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Are you kidding or what? Delete it! It serves no point to have 2 files, regardless of them being different formats, it does nothing except take up server space Jetijones (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Info Deleting does not help save server space. In Commons, deletion only means hiding it from general user's view. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep any PNG version of an SVG file, no matter when it was uploaded. This is needed because of the IE6 transparency bug. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not needed. Do I really have to give a list? Because I will. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and on and on and on. When we have a pre-existing SVG version, and somebody later uploads a raster duplicate, we delete it, especially in this case where the raster dupe was made from the pre-existing SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Fry is correct on policy -- later raster files are not kept. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- there is no notice on the wall of tomb. and it isnt under private Ownership. this is a govermental building. this case is similar building of [16].Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The building (monument) is less than 30 years old and therefore protected by the Iranian copyright law. Americophile 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Iran 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Per en:List of statues in Yerevan, this is a statue from 1989. Per COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union, it needs to be deleted. Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know. Go ahead.--Arabsalam (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- So? It is june now, what's next? pjahr @ 12:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Restored: now FOP in Armenia - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=96202242--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of en:File:NSWhighways.png which was deleted for having no source in 2011. Stefan4 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See also File:Ballina location map in New South Wales.PNG and the many, many others in the same circumstances at Category:Maps of New South Wales, Category:Maps of Victoria, Australia, Category:Maps of Queensland derived from work of en:User:Fikri etc. etc. Not sure why the NSW ones are all of a sudden a problem and the others aren't. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete lots of maps, I'm afraid, per no source: see en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Silverton location map in New South Wales.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Azerbaijan. Americophile 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an issue. Azerbaijani government makes no objection to taking pictures of monuments and posting them on the Internet. --Grandmaster 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright law (in Azerbaijan), even if mostly unenforced, is quite clear on the issue: there is no FOP in Azerbaijan. Maybe if enough images are removed, including ones Azerbaijan might consider useful for propaganda purposes, the government of Azerbaijan might change their copyright law, which might lead to it being changed in Armenia too, and in other countries which have similar FOP restrictions. Meowy (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Azerbaijan. Americophile 20:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an issue. Azerbaijani government makes no objection to taking pictures of monuments and posting them on the Internet. --Grandmaster 09:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is not the government who might object -- it is the copyright holder. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Threshold of originality for logos in Switzerland (permanent link), following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2012 logo.svg, while there is agreement that the Eurovision text and heart logos are public domain in the United States, their status in Switzerland (the country of orgin), is unclear. As a result, I am nominating all such images for deletion per the precautionary principle. CT Cooper · talk 00:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The full list of images included in this nomination is as follows:
- File:142151-esc2008logo-RESIZE-s925-s450-fit.jpg
- File:Esc logo 2006.png
- File:Esc logo 2007.jpg
- File:Esc2006 logo 1.jpg
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2004 logo.jpg
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2006 logo.svg
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2007 logo.png
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2008 logo.svg
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2009 logo.png
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2010 logo.svg
- File:Eurovision2010.png
- File:800px-Eurovision 2005 logo.png
- File:0123456789.png
- File:ESC Albania.PNG
- File:ESC Belarus.jpg
- File:ESC Slovenia.jpg
- File:ESC Sweden.PNG
- File:Isotipo de Eurovisión 2013.svg (filed added by Túrelio)
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2009 logo.svg (file added to nomination by Stefan4)
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Sweden.svg (file added to nomination by Stefan4)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurojunior2012.svg; Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isotipo del Festival de Eurovision 2012.svg
CT Cooper · talk 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Added File:Eurovision Song Contest 2009 logo.svg since you seem to have missed it and File:Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Sweden.svg since it was recently uploaded. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)- Comment Some of these are .svg that are created outside of Switzerland. Doesn't the image uploaded to commons need to be created there to qualify under their copyright laws?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The SVG files are derivative works of the original logos. Thus, I take it that the SVG files need to be free in both the country of origin of the original ESC logo (possibly Switzerland) and the country in which the SVG file was created (possibly a different country). --Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There are more similar logos in Category:Eurovision and Category:Logos of Eurovision. Most of those haven't been proposed for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The heart's on their own ones were excluded from this nomination as their copyright status should probably be assessed separately. There do appear to be a few others which were missed, but they can be dealt with separately. CT Cooper · talk 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Question. If a Swiss logo is created from scratch in another country with a high threshold of originality would it qualify to upload to commons? I am just confused about 'country of origin' being where there is an existing simple logo or where a new work is created from scratch. I may bring this up at pump/copyright.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Simple question, simple answer: I have no idea. It maybe depends on how Commons defines the country of origin. Similarly, would a photo of a building, taken in a no-FOP country, qualify for upload to Commons if the photo was first published in a country which does have FOP? Would it be possible to upload a photo of a recent building located in en:Baarle-Hertog if the photographer was located in en:Baarle-Nassau when taking the photo? In some way, I'd say that it shouldn't be possible to circumvent copyright rules by mixing with the country of origin. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- FOP issues and logo issues are apples and oranges, and I think bringing FOP in may cause more confusion than clarity. The country of origin for a work is normally where the work was first published, but with freedom of panorama it does work slightly differently, as we are dealing with the copyright of a building/sculpture and the presence/absence of an exemption in copyright law which allows depictions of buildings/sculptures to not be a infringement. On your first question, it can get very complicated,so I'm keeping it simple; where the photograph was first published is irrelevant as it is the copyright of the sculpture/building that matters, not that of the photograph - presuming the uploader is happy to give their work to Commons. Even if the photograph was first published in an FOP country, Commons generally treats the country of origin for buildings/sculptures as where they are physically located, which would be back in the country of no FOP, resulting in an infringement. On your second question, I'm not entirely sure. You could argue that as FOP provisions don't say "buildings in X country are only covered by this law" it is possible to upload photographs of buildings/sculptures from a non-FOP country provided the photograph was physically taken in a country with FOP, as the latter country would have legal jurisdiction, and so their FOP provision would apply. On the other hand, the building's/sculpture's country of origin is clearly the non-FOP country, potentially meaning there has been an infringement. I'm not aware of any DR cases of this being an issue. CT Cooper · talk 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- All nominated logos are in some way derivative works of the EBU Eurovision logo, meaning the country of origin is Switzerland for all of them. A logo created from scratch can still be a derivative work of another if there is a clear resemblance, which there is here. However, that is not probably not applicable here as these logos were either taken directly from the EBU website and uploaded or created from a template version of the Eurovision logo, not from scratch. CT Cooper · talk 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Simple question, simple answer: I have no idea. It maybe depends on how Commons defines the country of origin. Similarly, would a photo of a building, taken in a no-FOP country, qualify for upload to Commons if the photo was first published in a country which does have FOP? Would it be possible to upload a photo of a recent building located in en:Baarle-Hertog if the photographer was located in en:Baarle-Nassau when taking the photo? In some way, I'd say that it shouldn't be possible to circumvent copyright rules by mixing with the country of origin. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not Kate Bush. It is grossly mislabeled and misleading. Thanks. 99.69.76.82 03:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The description is clear and people can think from the date and see with their own eyes that it's a tribute band. Hekerui (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by GorillaWarfare as Copyvio for the following reason: http://www.fvarts.com/about-me.php Sreejith K (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Emailed uploader via OTRS. Ref: Ticket#: 2012031810007833 --Sreejith K (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Jespinos as Copyvio for the following reason: Non-free image taken from [17] Sreejith K (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Flickr user has a website: http://www.cristianlarrere.cl. He claims to be the author of the photos on his website and charges a fee for the usage of his images. He also says that his more recent photos can be found on his Flickr account. Jespinos (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Simple shape with 3D effects ? That is cleary not subject to PD-Textlogo or PD-Simplegeometry. I would also suggest to review all recent imports from user Nanovapor9. Loreleil (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Support En efecto, es una simple imagen consistente en figuras geométricas y no viola derechos, independientemente que sea una marca registrada. The Threshold of originality así lo dice, es solo un logo y unas meras letras. Discovery Channel, Renault, TNT, etc, son un claro ejemplo de lo que te quiero dar a entender, no debe ser retirada. Todas fueron subidas con sus plantillas correspondientes {{PD-shape}} y {{PD-textlogo}}. Y antes de poner pancartas en las imágenes subidas primero debate el tema, antes de tomar una determinación, el usuario Martin H. ya me había borrado de forma arbitraria una tabla subida a commons, sin previo aviso y sin tomarse el trabajo de indagar, está bien que sea administrador, pero eso no le da ningún derecho de borrar este tipo de imágenes subidas a partir de unos datos suministrados en es.wikipedia.
Nanovapor9 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have a clear lack of understanding of copyright and threshold of creativity : several time in the past admins of commons have mass deleted your import due to those problems, and I think you still miss the point. Loreleil (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, estas equivocado. Yo te hablo de cualquier logo: Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, Samsung, ESPN, Santa Fe, CNN, Heineken, Nike, Revista Rolling Stone, Renault, Metallica, Cincinnati Reds Logo.svg, Bayern Munich, Banfield, Sao Paulo FC o Racing Club. El umbral de originalidad no alcanza en muchos casos e independientemente que sean marca registrada o no, carecen de algún tipo de violación. Recuerda que son solo figuras y líneas geométricas.
- Linked Deletion requests :
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:BMW LOGO-1024x758.jpg (already closed and deleted)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:01-LogoCitroen.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beisbol-mlb.gif (deleted by admin)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mazda logo 1997.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hyundai-usa-logo1.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-toyota-3d-silver.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lexus-Logo-Wallpaper-1024x694.png
- Loreleil (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Nanovapor9. Te equivocas. Cada país tiene diferentes leyes acerca de derechos de autor. En los Estados Unidos y Alemania, simple geometría y texto no es protegida, es por eso que los logotipos de Pepsi, Microsoft, ESPN, Nike, Rolling Stone, Bayern, Metallica etc. se encuentran aquí. En cambio, un país como Francia, que no permite la libertad de panorama, ¿Estás seguro de que la ley es similar a la de E.U.? Es mas parecida a la del Reino Unido, en el cual simple geometría y texto es catalogado como suficientemente original.
- Delete Citroën is original enough in the country of origin unless it is proven the contrary. Tbhotch™ 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This logo is original. --Domaina (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The music in the audio part of the video must be available under a free licence. No declaration of the audio source in the file description. Pristurus (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hallo, guten Tag, Pristurus, ich habe Deine Bemerkungen zu den vorangegangenen Video-Clips zum Anlass genommen, nur noch auf meinem Yahama-Piano selbst "kombinierte" bzw. improvisierte Musikstücke zu verwenden. Wie kann ich das aber nachweisen, dass sie meine eigene Arbeit sind. Pardon, kannst Du mir da nochmal helfen? Ich hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht über Gebühr beanspruche. Freundliche Grüße --Joergsam (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The music in the audio part of the video must be available under a free licence. No declaration of the audio source in the file description. Pristurus (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hallo, guten Tag, Pristurus, ich habe Deine Bemerkungen zu den vorangegangenen Video-Clips zum Anlass genommen, nur noch auf meinem Yahama-Piano selbst "kombinierte" bzw. improvisierte Musikstücke zu verwenden. Wie kann ich das aber nachweisen, dass sie meine eigene Arbeit sind. Pardon, kannst Du mir da nochmal helfen? Ich hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht über Gebühr beanspruche. Freundliche Grüße --Joergsam (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The music in the audio part of the video must be available under a free licence. No declaration of the audio source in the file description. Pristurus (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hallo, guten Tag, Pristurus, ich habe Deine Bemerkungen zu den vorangegangenen Video-Clips zum Anlass genommen, nur noch auf meinem Yahama-Piano selbst "kombinierte" bzw. improvisierte Musikstücke zu verwenden. Wie kann ich das aber nachweisen, dass sie meine eigene Arbeit sind. Pardon, kannst Du mir da nochmal helfen? Ich hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht über Gebühr beanspruche. Freundliche Grüße --Joergsam (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The music in the audio part of the video must be available under a free licence. No declaration of the audio source in the file description. Pristurus (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hallo, guten Tag, Pristurus, ich habe Deine Bemerkungen zu den vorangegangenen Video-Clips zum Anlass genommen, nur noch auf meinem Yahama-Piano selbst "kombinierte" bzw. improvisierte Musikstücke zu verwenden. Wie kann ich das aber nachweisen, dass sie meine eigene Arbeit sind. Pardon, kannst Du mir da nochmal helfen? Ich hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht über Gebühr beanspruche. Freundliche Grüße --Joergsam (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The music in the audio part of the video must be available under a free licence. No declaration of the audio source in the file description. Pristurus (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hallo, guten Tag, Pristurus, ich habe Deine Bemerkungen zu den vorangegangenen Video-Clips zum Anlass genommen, nur noch auf meinem Yahama-Piano selbst "kombinierte" bzw. improvisierte Musikstücke zu verwenden. Wie kann ich das aber nachweisen, dass sie meine eigene Arbeit sind. Pardon, kannst Du mir da nochmal helfen? Ich hoffe, dass ich Dich nicht über Gebühr beanspruche. Freundliche Grüße --Joergsam (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Joergsam, mache einfach jeweils in der Filebeschreibung die entsprechenden Angaben z.B. "Die Musik wurde von mir selbst komponiert und gespielt.", dann ist damit alles geklärt. Ansonsten besitzen sowohl der/die Musiker wie auch der Komponist (so er nicht mindestens 70 Jahre tot ist) Rechte an deinem Video. Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Teatralnaya (Moscow Metro)
[edit]There is no FOP in Russia, so we can't keep these photos of monument and sculptures. Probably we can transfer them to Russian Wikipedia.
- File:Teatralnaja lenin Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 1.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 10.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 11.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 12.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 13.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 14.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 2.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 3.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 4.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 5.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 6.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 7.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 8.jpg
- File:Teatralnaya porcelain sculpture 9.jpg
Kobac (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Natalia Danko died at 18 march 1942. --Andreykor (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then we can keep photos of porcelain sculptures, but what about a monument? Kobac (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I read many books about "Teatralnaya" station, but there is no information about the author of this monument. --Andreykor (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then we can keep photos of porcelain sculptures, but what about a monument? Kobac (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept porcelains . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio from different sources.
Kobac (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio.
Kobac (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We do not know what the threshold of originality (COM:TOO) in Italy is, but this shows enough creativity to say, within reasonable doubt, that it possibly is above Italy's threshold. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - If this image goes, then all the images from Category:Association football logos of Italy should also go.--Sreejith K (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've marked several of those as {{Copyvio}}; others will hinge on this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I personally have very strict standards, stricter than most of the file workers here or on Wikipedia that I work with. In my opinion, the only one in that category that I'd say is DP-ineligible and should be kept on Commons is File:SSC Napoli.svg. Sven Manguard (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've marked several of those as {{Copyvio}}; others will hinge on this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Italian copyright law enumerates in article 2 works which are protected by this law. Registered trademarks (marchio registrato) and logos as this appear to belong to opere del disegno industriale which are considered in section 10:
- Le opere del disegno industriale che presentino di per sé carattere creativo e valore artistico.
Hence, some creativity and artistic value are required for a protection. I understand this requirement to that extent that applied art has a higher level of required originality in comparison to other kinds of works. This appears to be to some extent similar to other European continental countries like Germany which have similar provisions. I cannot claim to have knowledge of Italian case law but I think that it should be safe enough to keep this logo on the ground that it lacks artistic value as it consists of text and simple geometric shapes only, i.e. an ellipse, a simple cross, and multiple stripes in alternating colors. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Simo82 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image alredy deleted with anoter name (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acm.png), also original image transferred from en.wiki has no free license Sreejith K (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- And under which rationale do you want to have it deleted? Do have read my rationale above? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted by Fastily.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:UDEL as below Italy TOO. Daphne Lantier 00:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)