Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/03/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Uploaded image is not generating thumbnail or full image. Ascales (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by upl on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
несодержательный 89.169.233.209 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Cannot follow the reason. A.Savin 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a terribly made MS Paint drawing that has no educational purpose, even if it is the only free image to define what a hoop snake is. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's unmitigatedly terrible -- it's admittedly crude, yet vigorous. Anyway, some of the images in Category:Ouroboros could be used if there's need of an illustration for the en:Hoop snake article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, unusable low quality George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, user artwork – JBarta (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of France.svg. ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Cote d'Ivoire.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
unknwon person, unknown location, unused privat image. out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture, I don't want it to be on the internet Neireel (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope and per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, imho. Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Joke, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope. description says test image Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
private stuff. out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown person P at the unknwon raven. uploader: a friend, quelle: P@W. Enuf wrong for RFD. Did I mention the low quality and small size? :) Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope kiddy chat Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted toy. RE rillke questions? 13:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
sollte eine Category werden, ist nun eine, so dass die Page überflüssig ist Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No copyright information provided and noting the fact that this is a logo of a still existing organisation and also the copyright information on their website, it is almost certain that it has not been released under the appropriate license. Woodcutterty (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Low quality/resolution; orphaned/replaced by File:Pentafluoroethyl-iodide-2D-skeletal.png. Leyo 13:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused low quality image with superior alternative. Ed (Edgar181) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dannedaleet (talk · contribs)
[edit]private pics, fun, jokes. whatever. out of scope here
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poteitonl.png. Some files with gibberish description and names and content. Other ones perhaps used on a personal website, so abusing Commons as free webhoster. (e.g File:Montagem-pedaço 4.png, File:Logo Marca Ssátyro Produções.png look like a site banners)
- File:Bkvjdbvjsdbvjksbdfkjvsbdkfvsdfb.png
- File:Jnvjdfvihdbvhsdbfhvsbdhfvsdfv.png
- File:Ukyukfyukdfukjfgjkhj.png
- File:One piece chatfienfjwenf.png
- File:My bitche hifuowseifnw.png
- File:Trolação156485.png
- File:Escrivaninha Projeto.png
- File:Sem títuloasdasdawd.png
- File:Prova de parceiria.png
- File:Montagem-pedaço 4.png
- File:Montagem-pedaço 1.png
- File:Montagem-pedaço 3.png
- File:Montagem-pedaço 2.png
- File:I Carton.png
- File:Logo Marca Ssátyro Produções.png
RE rillke questions? 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope.
- File:Boletín Oficial del Estado núm. 225.JPG
- File:Boletín Oficial del Estado núm. 211.JPG
- File:Boletín Oficial del Estado núm. 246.JPG
- File:Boletín Oficial del Estado núm. 94.JPG
Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, text only George Chernilevsky talk 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
has watermarks from a cinema website which the uploader claims as his own work ravidreams (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No Permission: "Photo courtesy of Mariot Huessy, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Fund." This image was moved from enwiki to Commons. I think that Fair Use is applicable here. Please undelete this file on enwiki before deleting it on Commons Raymond 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Raymond, this is another case, as with Freya von Moltke, where the image is on Wikimedia Commons and Fair Use might not be sufficient. I am in contact with Mariot Huessy, the holder of the copyright through the Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Fund, who originally gave me oral permission to use the image under the four freedoms. What would be needed at this stage to secure its usage? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi HopsonRoad, thanks for your question. Please read this page: Commons:OTRS. It would be really great if you could get the permission from the copyright holder. Good luck! Raymond 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copy of permission
- OTR Pending
I have posted an OTR pending, based on the following:
To: permissions-commonswikimedia.org
I hereby affirm that I, Mariot Huessy am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Wikipedia file, File:Eugen <File:///\\Eugen> Rosenstock-Huessy.jpg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eugen_Rosenstock-Huessy.jpg). I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of this work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Mariot Huessy, Director, The Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Fund P.O. Box 96 Jericho Vermont 05465 802-899-4694 mariot@homeplacebandb.com
HopsonRoad (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Permission received: 2012040410000588 Raymond 13:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by ZikaJeKonj (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've tagged most other files uploaded by the user as copyvio. This one is a copyvio from here. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A copyright violation. Image is cut out of a sticker (see this article from 2008, in the website of a prominent Israeli newspaper). Tomer T (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not free. matanya • talk 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
PDF file locked with unknown password Funfood ␌ 09:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Harry1337leet (talk · contribs). Modern art of some kind. I think painter permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC) which are:
- File:Swiat2012nahaju.jpg
- File:Adriannaflorekautoportret.JPG
- File:Adriannaflorekhellokaty.JPG
- File:Adriannaflorekpetedoherty.JPG
- File:Adriannaflorekzachodslonca.JPG
--JuTa 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW found on internet like here [[1]], unknown license of original image AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I hate to to do this, but there is no information about where this image comes from etc. Do we have permission? Sarah (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Dasgravyboat claimed ownership of the photo on the Wikipedia article for Geraldo Rivera's talkpage. "Looks like my photo's been making the rounds. :) This was taken during the OWS protests back in October when he was doing coverage. --Dasgravyboat (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)" - Quotation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geraldo_Rivera
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. RE rillke questions? 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is a scan, from The ascent of cat breeds, 2008 report.
Copyright is not violated.
The poster calls it his "own work." This is incorrect - it is from a published report of different authors.
Poster is also attempting to use the wiki site for personal agenda/promotion.
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - drive-by uploader, no camera metadata, several versions of this crop up online in colour. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- bade name
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- bad name
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- bad name
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- superseded by
- Any links to the old version has been deleted.
- German Fingering has been replaced by international Fingering
- In contrast to "Form" the international word "type" or "shape" are not generally understood. (compare Category:Chords in guitar svg)
- Given the benefit of the international use of the images, the synonymous "form" should be preferred.
- Request of the author and bad name and unused makes a speedydelete possible
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
creator of both picturer --Mjchael (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jackmancool (talk · contribs)
[edit]The uploader was not honest in one case, so I checked some other uploads:
- File:SligoSkyline.jpg - http://www.sligotowncentre.com/images/city01.jpg
- File:BelfastSkyline2012.jpg - http://www.spoton.de/files/spoton/leadimages/Belfast_91766568.jpg
- File:CorkSkyline2012.jpg - http://www.discoveringcork.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Cork-City-skyline.jpg © Clipet Marketing Ltd. t/a DiscoveringCork 2012
So what is really your own work, Jackmancool?
- File:DocklandsSunriseDublin.jpg
- File:Dublin Skyline.jpg
- File:SligoSkyline.jpg
- File:Carrickmarina.jpg
- File:TraleeSquare.jpg
- File:ColeraineTyrone.jpg
- File:BallymenaStreetscape.jpg
- File:LimerickSkyline.jpg
- File:LisburnMuseum.jpg
- File:DundalkSquare.jpg
- File:CorkSkyline2012.jpg
- File:DerrySkyline2012.jpg
- File:BelfastSkyline2012.jpg
- File:GalwayAerialPhoto.jpg
- File:Dublin aerial photograph.jpg
- File:Sligo montage.pdf
- File:Drogheda Montage January 2012.jpg
RE rillke questions? 15:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: duplicate file
Kept: for now because no duplicate found, but marked as no permission. JuTa 20:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
there is no original date of publication. These are reproductions of raja ravi varma paintings. P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - artist died 1906. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete All "Ravi Varma Press" lithographs are not by Raja Ravi varma. For e.g [2] a Anant Desai painting published in c. 1912 by Raja Ravi varma Press. Raja Ravi varma lithographs are signed by the artist like his paintings. If "Raja Ravi varma press" closed before 1950, we can be sure that PD-India applies. The current source does not give a date. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iLYApekpvYU/R72EdHCzmBI/AAAAAAAABDg/bGUzmML7IMQ/s1600-h/CHAURASI+DEVATA+AUVALI+GAY.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per Redtigerxyz. JuTa 20:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the game covers, clearly fails de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Statue in the United States which has no FOP for statues. The statue may or may not have a copyright notice, but in either case it is a derivative work of en:Steamboat Willie, so it will be copyrighted at least as long as Steamboat Willie is copyrighted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse - The Mad Doctor.png. Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strange arguments, I think. The statue itself and Mickey Mouse as a figure are undoubtedly protected by copyright laws. But this has nothing to do with the photograph. The question here is: Is the ground where the picture was shot a public place or not? If you say "No, Walt Disney World Resort is a private ground and this Wikimedia Commons photographer has no permission by the owners to take pictures there and release them under a GNU licence" then we have indeed to delete most of the Wikimedia Commons pictures of the magic kingdom. But, please: We should answer that question, get it clear and find a general rule for photographs like that. We need a solution, because it's silly to start new deletion requests every few months by people who can't judge copyright and freedom of panorama rules. -- J.-H. Janßen (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- This photo was taken in the United States. You can't take a photo of a statue in the United States unless the copyright to the statue has expired, regardless of whether it is located at a public place or not. Laws differ from country to country as explained at COM:FOP. Some countries, such as Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom, allow you to take a photo of most things. Other countries, such as the United States, only allow you to take photos of buildings but not of statues. Yet other countries, such as France, Russia and Italy, don't allow you to take photos of anything, not even buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Statue was unveiled on November 18, 1993 [3], meaning copyright is automatic and does not need to be declared on the statue. There is no freedom of panorama (regardless of public or private space) in the U.S. for three dimensional works of art, such as statues. The statue is the central focus of the image and is not de minimis to the overall image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Hammersoft JuTa 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Is this eligible for copyright? Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. IMHO above threshold. JuTa 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission and possibly out of scope. Is this eligible for copyright? I'm assuming yes in this case since the "s" looks quite complex. Stefan4 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom JuTa 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Is this eligible for copyright? Country unknown so assessing COM:TOO for the country of origin is difficult. Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Looks too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} for a British logo. Stefan4 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyvio iamge. Low resolution, source no define. Mangal pandey looks like http://bharatmatamandir.in/blog/2008/05/10/mangal-pandey/. Uploader claim that this is his/her own work Jayantanth (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Mangal pandey gimp.jpg is availabe.Jayantanth (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This is not a copyvio at all. This is a coloured handmade portrate of Mangal Pandey. I have created the image from my Nokia mobile and edited electronically over the mobile itself. Please do not compare with other images otherwise nobody would like to contribute on wikicommons. Its my humble submission.Kindly keep it there Krantmlverma (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly a derivative work, as per the pixelated border. The uploader has adopted this idiosyncratic practice previously and in all past cases the images were deleted, eg: File:Akhilesh Yadav2012.gif. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
How this image is public domain?, There is no proof this images is in pubic domain Jayantanth (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: These images had been published in so many books. I have also published these images in my book from where I have created this image the description of which is already given on the file page. Moreover I do not claim any copyright of these images. My dear these are the rare images of great revolutionaries of India. I would earnestly request to everyone whosoever to KEEP it on wikicommons so that many people of this world may be benifited by this noble contribution of mine. After all I am not a layman, I am an author of so many historical books and do not suppose such a vandalism over wikipedia organisation. With all regards to everyone,Krantmlverma (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are two issues:
- Copyright of the book: permission should be confirmed via OTRS.
- Copyright of images: we need to know if these photographs are in public domain. If they art, probably images cropped alone would fall into PD-Art even if we don't get a valid permission from the author of the book.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- My dear Pere pripe! I am a reputed author who is an awardee of Senior Fellowship in this particular field. Do you think me to tell a lie? When I upload a file give a valid reason you should honour it otherwise why anybody would like to contribute on wiki.org. This is a historical image which must me retained on wikicommons its my humble opinion and submission as well.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
- I have incorporated the license permission on the prescribed format. Kindly see it once again, review it & KEEP this important image on wikicommons. Regards.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
- Krantmlverma (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you act in good faith and that your knowledge about Kakori Case is enormous, and I agree that it would be very interesting to have such historical images in Commons.
- Although, you stated that you made this work. This means that:
- You took the photographs in 1925 by yourself and published it in your book. I'm glad to see that senior citizens of your age are still willing to contribute to Commons - since you were already active 87 years ago, and you are probably one of the very few wikipedists over 100 years old. Anyway, we need an OTRS permission stating that you took the photos and you hold the rights on the book.
- Or those images are in public domain and you used them in your book. If so, we would need:
- A rationale about why are those images in public domain in the USA and source country. The fact they have been shown in a lot of books is not a valid reason.
- An OTRS-validated permission to use your book - or a cropped version of images. If the book can't be seen, permission to use the book is not mandatory.
- If we don have this, we won't be able to keep these images, despite of our wishes to keep them in regard of their historical interest.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- NOTE: As per his own wiki userpage, the reputed author was born in 1947. Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright of the image and is there any info to the contrary, that they are not in Public Domain? By a broad sense of circumstances in which they were taken, and that the next 30 years they were politically not claimable, I very seriously doubt if there is an issue. May be the disclaimer needs better wording, but taking them off would defeat public interest and the purpose of wiki.
KEEP I have seen the books of Dr Krant M.L.Verma from where this image has been taken. The author holds the copyright and have also given the permission to reuse this image. I find no harm in keeping this file of Historic importance. So many people will be benefited by wikipedia.Awadhesh.Pandey (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
"KEEP" This historical image of Indian freedom fighter and a true patriot.
Deleted: still no COM:OTRS release confimed. JuTa 20:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Out of scope: unused file, private image --Sreejith K (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I dont understand why there must be a Sub-page. What Sub-page? Why the file should be in use in another Project? -- Haubi (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- BrightRaven nominated this file for deletion but did not create a DR discussion page. I just completed the process. Since you are the uploader, can you please share your views? Do you want this file to be kept in Commons or not? And why? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- This people were essential participants in the mining project at Limenaria for 10 years. They should even have a specific article as remarkable persons! I want this file be kept in Commons. -- Haubi (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- According to the file description, it is a picture of a truck owner and his brother. I do not think he is notable enough to have a specific article. This is a private image of non notable person, hence out of scope. (Sorry for not creating the subpage. I do not know why it did not work.) BrightRaven (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Haubi, can you please give a better description in the image page? Please elaborate about the persons in the picture. Make sure to emphasize on the notability factor. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Is the description now more notable? -- Haubi (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- This people were essential participants in the mining project at Limenaria for 10 years. They should even have a specific article as remarkable persons! I want this file be kept in Commons. -- Haubi (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- BrightRaven nominated this file for deletion but did not create a DR discussion page. I just completed the process. Since you are the uploader, can you please share your views? Do you want this file to be kept in Commons or not? And why? --Sreejith K (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I dont understand why there must be a Sub-page. What Sub-page? Why the file should be in use in another Project? -- Haubi (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: cant find any nobility of the people. JuTa 20:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Falsch Dateibeschreibung Haubi (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as duplicate of File:Schloß 1.C.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, She is (1921-2009), original copyright holder may be present Jayantanth (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: Yes of course! she died in 2009 and we all the laureates, near and dears of Asha Ji published a souvenir to commemorate her works. This image was created by me from the cover page of that souvenir and uploaded on wikicommons under Cc-zero license permission. I think there is no harm in keeping this image on wikicommons for a good cause. So KEEP it gracefully. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the problems are self-evident and the uploader, unfortunately, is a darn nuisance: there are real competence issues here, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP - As appears from the image itself, this is the front cover of the souvenir (book) and the image taken in a low resolution. Only the photo portion of the cover page has been covered and the rest portion has been left. Hence there is no harm in using it on share alike basis. Krantmlverma (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: th foto on foto is still copyrighted. JuTa 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a picture, original copyright holder may be present Jayantanth (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments: Yes! I have the original photograph in my private album from which I have created this image. I have given license permission under Cc-zero terms. Then what is the harm in keeping this image on wikicommons. Many people will be benifitted. So please KEEP it. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: cant find any "foreign" source. JuTa 21:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Rajendra Lahiri (1901–1927), How this works his own?, May be copyrighted to painter. Jayantanth (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This image was published in so many books. I have also published this image in my book from where I have created this image. Moreover, I do not claim any copyright of these images. My dear this is the rare image of a great revolutionary of India. I would earnestly request to everyone whosoever to KEEP it on wikicommons so that many people of this world may be benifited by this noble contribution of mine. After all I am not a layman, I am an author of so many historical books and do not suppose such a vandalism over wikipedia organisation. With all regards to everyone,Krantmlverma (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no acceptable source. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- COMMENTS - My dear Sitush! Please do not be biased. Let there be a fare CONSENSUS over this issue. Krantmlverma (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
cover page of a book, may be copyvio, this image use in Hindi wikipedia stated that means Hindi traslation of Vande Mataram from which book cover, it means this uploader claiming that he did this translation works in Hindi of en:Vande Mataram. Jayantanth (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Comments: Cc-zero permission of own work is given on the file page. Other description about this image is already there. Kindly go through and KEEP it on wikicommons. ThanksKrantmlverma (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly not own work and is a probable copyvio. The uploader is a serial violator of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyighted book cover. JuTa 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Advertising MorphThing.com website - No evidence this image is free 195.59.45.126 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The image is a morph of pictures of the two statisticians. It appears only on my user page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 09:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hey KW. Perhaps it would be good if you could reference the two pictures which were morphed so we can see they are free - and crop it to remove the logo. If they're both free, then it's just a derivative work and should be fine. WormTT · (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi David/WTT!
- Anybody is welcome to delete this humorous image, which need not be in compliance with all WMF policies, as far as I know. The Wolfowitz source is CC2.0BYSA, because it comes from Oberwolfach. The Kiefer source I can check on. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey KW. Perhaps it would be good if you could reference the two pictures which were morphed so we can see they are free - and crop it to remove the logo. If they're both free, then it's just a derivative work and should be fine. WormTT · (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. JuTa 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is against en:WP:NC-SoJ. There is no option "East Sea (Sea of Japan)". Possible disruptive editing replacing to this file. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: en: naming convntion does not realy matter on commons. JuTa 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Slovenian law, publicly displayed works of people who died after 1945 are copyrighted. See Commons:FOP#Slovenia. The author died in 1975. Sreejith K (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale above. The author is Boris Kalin.[4] The image may be uploaded locally where appropriate. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: but undelete in 2046. JuTa 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Slovenian law, publicly displayed works of people who died after 1945 are copyrighted. See Commons:FOP#Slovenia. The author Mirsad Begić is still alive. Sreejith K (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale above. The image may be uploaded locally where appropriate. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- But I think we don't have any pic of that pistol...--Sanandros (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- What about File:ИЖ-79-9Т.jpg? Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- But different version.--Sanandros (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- What about File:ИЖ-79-9Т.jpg? Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: IMO good enough to keep. JuTa 21:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LutzBruno as no permission (no permission since) LutzBruno (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Meine Gründe für die Löschungsanträge
Ich bin eingeschnappt, dass ich als Fotograf nicht genannt werden soll. Die Objekte sind gemeinfrei aufgrund ihres Alters. Sie kann jeder fotografieren, der sie in die Hand bekommt, entweder, dass er sie besitzt oder dass sie ihm geliehen werden. Doch mein Foto ist mein Werk. Diese Fotos zu erstellen ist mit einigem Aufwand verbunden. Meine Fotos sind zudem drucktauglich (hohe Auflösung). Ich stelle meine Sammelobjekte ins Netz, weil Sammlern mitunter vorgehalten wird, die halten Kulturgut unter Verschluss. Und weil ich mich als Ruheständler nützlich machen will. Da die Fotos nicht in Wikipedia bleiben, sondern abgestaubt werden, möchte ich, dass ich als Bildgeber genannt werde. Ich komme mir jedes Mal ausgeblufft vor, wenn ich meine Fotos in Büchern wieder finde. Nicht einmal Wikipedia wird als Bildgeber genannt.
Wikipedia sollte sich nicht ausplündern lassen. Bildmaterial kostenfrei, aber mit der Auflage, dass Wikipedia als Quelle genannt werden muss. Erst recht, wenn das Bildmaterial Seltenheiten abbildet im Originalfoto, in hoher Auflösung und drucktauglicher Pixeldichte, abbildungstauglich retuschiert (wenn das Objekt Alterschäden hat.) Fotos von zweidimensionalen Objekten fallen auch unter Objektfotographie. Wikipedia erspart als Bildgeber (zumindest in meinem Fall) Schmarotzern Arbeit und Geld. Wenn ich schon nicht genannt werde, dann sollte zumindest Wikipedia als Quelle genannt werden. Wikipedia – verschenke, ab er lass Dich nicht beklauen!
Vorschlag 1: Meine Fotos von zweidimensionalen Objekten werden alle gelöscht, da nicht einzusehen ist, dass diese Fotoarbeiten mit Aufwand verbunden sind und der Urheber deswegen genannt werden soll.
Vorschlag 2: Ich werde als Urheber der Fotos genannt. Dann ziehe ich die Löschungsanträge zurück. Meine Bücherfotos werden inzwischen als Objektfotografie gewertet. Aus Dankbarkeit bin ich dazu übergegangen mit „Foto H.-P.Haack Wikimedia“ zu zeichnen. Das hole ich bei allen Bücherfotos nach. Für die alte Druckgrafik würde ich das auch machen. Die Fotos gefallen mir schon lange nicht mehr. Ich habe die Blätter fast alle noch und will bessere Fotos davon herstellen. WIKIVERSITY lässt mich gewähren. Danke!
Ich denke, wir kommen unter einen Hut. Der Sturm im Wasserglas ist bald verebbt. Mein Ton ist leider mitunter raubeinig, aber ich bin nicht nachtragend.
- - H.-P.Haack (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- H.-P., es geht hier nicht um einen Scan von einem Buchtitel sondern um ein Bild von dir. Ein Bild an dem du nicht die Urheberrechte hast. Und bei dem ich ehrlich gesagt nicht verstehe warum du es hochlädst, denn scheinbar ist deine einzige Intention hinter diesem Upload dich über die Arbeit des Künstlers öffentlich zu beschweren und dafür ist Commons der falsche Ort. --Martin H. (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion JuTa 21:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see any copyrightable. JuTa 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Missing informations about background picture Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not 2D. PD-art does not apply. FA2010 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep 2D painting on curved surface. This one should be OK 3D distortions are minimal and it passes the shadow test (none of the elements are sticking out enough to cast shadows). --Jarekt (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: on the borderline but kept per Jarekt. JuTa 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
not 2D, PD-art does not apply FA2010 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep To me that looks like a photo of a 2D painting of a 3D scene which is OK, not a photo of 3D scene with the painting. Or in other words 3D objects like columns and the dog are painted and not real. However I might be wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: the perpestive of the "side walls" looking real and not painted, which makes it a real 3D work. JuTa 21:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
the museum website shows http://collections.vam.ac.uk/information/information_highresolutionimages P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: 2D work from ca. 1590. Clearly PD-art, but deleted 1st uploaded version because possibly not completely 2D. JuTa 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The image of this square and the buildings violates copyright in Slovenia, because its architect,[5] Edvard Ravnikar, died in 1993. Works of authors who died in 1945 or later are copyrighted in Slovenia, see commons:FOP#Slovenia. The image may be uploaded locally where appropriate. Eleassar (t/p) 13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't that what {{FoP}} is for? --Sporti (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Slovenian copyright law does not allow for commercial use, which makes the file ineligible for Commons. See Commons:FOP. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: but undelete in 2064. JuTa 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The image is a reproduction of a copyrighted work of authors still alive (it was completed in 1999).[6] According to the Slovenian copyright law, see Commons:FOP#Slovenia, the works of authors who died in 1945 or later or are still alive, are copyrighted. The image may be uploaded locally where appropriate. Eleassar (t/p) 13:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Upload locally and then delete. Žiga (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've uploaded it to the English Wikipedia (en:File:Chamber_of_Commerce_-_Ljubljana,_Dimič_Street_9_-_March_2007.jpg), where it is used in the article en:Slovenia and to the Slovene Wikipedia (sl:Slika:320px-GospodarskaZbornicaLjubljana.jpg). I can't upload to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, because I don't know the language and Ukrainian copyright restrictions. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- What's the difference between uploaded at sl, en or commons legally? All the servers are in the USA. --Sporti (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's no difference legally (or at least I'm not aware of it). The difference is in the scope of the project - what is the purpose of the project and what material does the project accept. Commons accepts only material that is free in the US and in the country of origin (see Commons:Scope and Commons:Licensing). The English Wikipedia accepts material that is free in the US (for architecture, see en:Template:FoP-USonly). The Slovene Wikipedia can accept material free in both the US and in Slovenia, and EDP content under additional restrictions (if it is not decided by the project to not accept EDP, like it was in the Spanish Wikipedia), per wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom JuTa 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing Agora (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Person also removed from nl-wiki in the mean time for lack of notability. MoiraMoira (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is a reproduction of a copyrighted work of two brothers, one of which died in 1997 and another is still alive, see Lado Gorišek and Janez Gorišek.[7] Per Slovenian copyright law, see commons:FOP#Slovenia, the publicly displayed works of people who died after 1944 or are still alive, are copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama. Article 5 of the Slovenian copyright act protects "works of architecture such as sketches, plans, and built structures in the field of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture".[8] The image may be uploaded locally where appropriate. Eleassar (t/p) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't that what {{FoP}} is for? Also don't think it really has any actuals copyrightible elements. --Sporti (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be glad if it would be so. Per Commons:FOP: "If the country the image is taken in does not have these provisions, or only allows them for non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy and must be deleted." And unfortunately that's the case in Slovenia, it's only allowable for non-commercial purposes. I also think this ski jumping hill is a work of architecture, because it was based on a plan into which a lot of effort was put. It meets the five provisions demanded by the Slovenian copyright law to classify as an author work: created by a human, individual, a reflection of author's spirit, a work from the area of science, and perceivable.[9] --Eleassar (t/p) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, the actual arhitecture element is the inrun, which is very small part of the photo (De Minimis), most of it is the landing hill, which is just a typical ski jump landing hill. (Kot pravi rek: ni treba bit bolj papeški od papeža). --Sporti (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "de minimis" clause does not seem to be fullfiled here. Article 52 of the Slovenian copyright act states: "Such disclosed works that may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object, may be used freely while exploiting such object." (Slovene: "Tista objavljena dela, ki so nebistvena pritiklina glede na siceršnjo namembnost nekega predmeta, so pri izkoriščanju tega predmeta v prosti uporabi.") I don't think this is really the case here. Per Commons:De Minimis: "if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis. ... A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background"." It seems that here the image would not be as good and useful without the inrun. (Sorry for causing you trouble. We can't offer things as free if they're not. As I said, you may upload the image locally. You may also publish it somewhere outside Wikimedia projects, and write your representatives to change the law (although, sincerely, this seems to be the option with the least hope - but if more people do this, perhaps something will change)). --Eleassar (t/p) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose if you delete this one, you also have to delete other photos in Category:Planica ski jumping World Cup. You can hardly see the jumping area, most of the photo is just jumping hill with tower and spectators. --Pinky sl (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll see how this proposal goes through (this file just happened to be included in an article I came by) and then decide whether to nominate them based on the outcome and arguments. File:Planica2005SkiFlyingChampionship.JPG would stay, if it's true what Sporti says (it's only a typical ski jump landing hill). Also File:Hiroya Saito 2000-03-19.jpg would stay. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, if it's true that this is only an ordinary jumping hill, then the images may be cropped to exclude the inrun. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll see how this proposal goes through (this file just happened to be included in an article I came by) and then decide whether to nominate them based on the outcome and arguments. File:Planica2005SkiFlyingChampionship.JPG would stay, if it's true what Sporti says (it's only a typical ski jump landing hill). Also File:Hiroya Saito 2000-03-19.jpg would stay. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose As Sporti said, there is not much copyrighted architecture to speak of.— MZaplotnik (my contribs) 14:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is such architecture, and it is not "of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object" (see Commons:De minimis#Slovenia). --Eleassar (t/p) 06:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: the "jumping tower" is barely visible on this image. JuTa 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The uploader's claims of being the author and copyright holder are clearly false, and thus the licensing claims are also invalid. It appears to be taken from http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/italy/i_carrara_teatroverdi.htm, which also provides a more likely date. The correct author is named on that page, so {{Anonymous-EU}} does not apply. I haven't been able to find out when the author died, but given the date of the photo, it is unlikely that {{PD-old-70}} applies. It's possible that {{PD-Italy}} applies, but I'm not sure that this is below the threshold required for that. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
violation de copyright depuis http://www.forestiersamos.com/defenseurs_photos.asp?Num=44 TaraO (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from Google maps Hugo.arg (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Lützelburg91 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some list web site as source. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dumpterminal (talk · contribs). Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this image is probable copyvio. Not only because of its low resolution, the information about author and license are unclear and there is a watermark on the initial version Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Such low resolution that I wonder if this is a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The photographer dosen't have the ability to release this text, it's copyrighted by the author, and text isn't covered by FOP. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain subject, but certainly not "Cobalamin" (per its description) and does not appear to be the image in the now-deleted en:File:Cobalamin.png claimed as original before transfer to commons DMacks (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not true SVG. ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
derivative work of the 80proof on http://www.greatbourbon.com/ShelfTalkers.aspx?gbid=40 ; exif added? RE rillke questions? 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Do not upload twice. See File:Compex Logo.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Do not upload multiple times. See File:Compex Logo.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Source of original photograph not given Funfood ␌ 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JoshAcevedo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:Paradoja de los Números Interesantes Modificada.pdf
- File:Test de Primalidad.pdf
- File:Fórmula para calcular el número e.pdf
- File:Es el Cero un Número Natural.pdf
- File:Numeros naturales.pdf
- File:Santo Domingo.pdf
- File:Numeros Cuasi perfectos.pdf
- File:Conjetura de los coeficientes intercambiados.pdf
- File:Combinaciones sin Repetición.pdf
- File:Conjetura 2n + 2.pdf
- File:Algoritmo para Calcular Logaritmos.pdf
- File:Números Primos de un Conjunto.pdf
- File:Paradoja del Omnisapiente.pdf
- File:New mathematical conjecture.pdf
- File:Conjetura Generalizada del postulado de Bertrand.pdf
- File:Algoritmo Log. new.pdf
- File:C Mag. (1).pdf
Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
and File:Портрет А.А. Дынкина.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I can find no licencing on the source website. Latuff's deviantart page says works are for non-commercial usage. If a valid licence can be demonstrated, I will happily withdraw this nomination, until then the Free Art Licence is suspected not to be valid russavia (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- We seem to have an OTRS filed for Latuff images. It was not included in this image so I added it. // Liftarn (talk)
- Thanks Liftarn, I've reviewed the ticket myself, and it doesn't satisfy what is expected--if I processed this ticket, I would never have confirmed it. I will, however, close of this request, and raise a new discussion to involve ALL Latuff images. Unless someone is able to get a clear licencing statement. I'll explain at new request. russavia (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- What about the mail correspondence at User:555/Latuff? --Denniss (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Liftarn, I've reviewed the ticket myself, and it doesn't satisfy what is expected--if I processed this ticket, I would never have confirmed it. I will, however, close of this request, and raise a new discussion to involve ALL Latuff images. Unless someone is able to get a clear licencing statement. I'll explain at new request. russavia (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per russavia JuTa 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP in France, and there is no indication that the photographer is the creator of the door. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The building was built in 1901 and the door belongs to the building. We are now in 2012, 111 eleven years later. Are you being a troll, Sven? --Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a bit more about the building: Maison Blankenburg. The architects died in 1927 (Krafft) and 1926 (Berninger). Don't be a dick. --Edelseider (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- 2012-max(1926,1927) > 70. Deletion proposition not relevant. --Pethrus (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- With the information presented there was no way for me to know that the building was that old. Thank you for assuming bad faith and calling me names. That always helps the content building process, builds a strong community, and prevents drama. It's been an absolute pleasure working with you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- 2012-max(1926,1927) > 70. Deletion proposition not relevant. --Pethrus (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Architects died more than 80 years ago. I am not the creator of the Eiffel Tower, but I may photograph it and publish my photos. Dear Sven Manguard, take a look to Category:la Défense and its subcategories. You will find many recent skyscrapers (of course recent) and recent artwork that violate no-FoP in France. I am tired to ask them for deletion, for example File:BC1.JPG. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. As I said above, I didn't know how old it was. The proper thing would have been for me to withdraw the nomination, but let's just say that after reading what Edelseider said, I was in no great rush to make his life any easier by expediting the process. He, and people who behave like him, are the reason people bail from WMF projects, so it can wait. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion JuTa 07:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader with lots and lots of copyvios. This image also appears here but unfortunately the oldest version of the page at the Internet archive is from 14 April 2009 while the Commons upload was on 8 April 2009. It is likely copyvio, but I can't prove it since the archive lacks older versions of the page. EXIF of this version shows a camera model (Fujifilm FinePix S3Pro) I've not seen in any of the user's other uploads. Stefan4 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete uploader doesn't have a clue about copyright. 99.9% copyvio. Amada44 talk to me 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep A la lecture des justifications qu'avaient apportées Breugelius sur les pages de discussion, je n'ai vu aucun élément qui ait pu faire craindre à un risque réel de léser des ayants droits et nous avons perdu en particulier en mycologie un certain de nombre de photos intéressantes qu'il était probablement possible de régulariser. Pour cette photo une violation de droit de copie ne me semble pas évidente au contraire les indications d'auteur sont claires. --Bildoj (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ayant lu User talk:Breugelius#Photos de champis et COM:BI#Photos sous ©, je pense qu'il y a trop des problèmes avec les images de Breugelius pour garder cette image. J'ai trouvé plusieurs d'image de Liège sur un blog et ses photos de champignons sont aussi à des différentes pages sur l'Internet. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ayant lu [10], je m'abstiendrai de tirer sur un wikipédien à terre. Pour les photos qui ont été supprimées, il n'y plus de trace et c'est maintenant difficile de juger, pour le vase je continue à penser qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de supprimer l'image. --Bildoj (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Bildoj : le problème, c'est qu'il n'a jamais travaillé à l'université de Liège (Cf. fr:Projet:Biologie/Le café des biologistes#Breugelius : épilogue ? pour toutes les incohérences et affabulations du personnage et cette info sur ma pdd. Les deux personnes avec lesquelles il prétend avoir travaillé dans le diff que tu montres sont ses parents (décédés tous les deux). Pour avoir cherché un bon nombre des copyvios de photos de champignons, je peux t'assurer qu'elles étaient bien copiées, avec très souvent recadrage pour supprimer les filigranes et autres marques de copyright sur les côtés, et même des pertes de qualité (pixellisation, couleurs, etc.) par rapport à l'original, sûrement liées aux retouches qu'il a faites. Pour ce qui est de l'OTRS, cela ne concerne en rien les photos de champignons, mais seulement les cartes faites par lui-même pour le livre Visage d'Olne (et je n'ai pas encore tout bien compris sur cette histoire d'OTRS donné par un seul auteur pour un livre collectif). TED 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ayant lu [10], je m'abstiendrai de tirer sur un wikipédien à terre. Pour les photos qui ont été supprimées, il n'y plus de trace et c'est maintenant difficile de juger, pour le vase je continue à penser qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de supprimer l'image. --Bildoj (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ayant lu User talk:Breugelius#Photos de champis et COM:BI#Photos sous ©, je pense qu'il y a trop des problèmes avec les images de Breugelius pour garder cette image. J'ai trouvé plusieurs d'image de Liège sur un blog et ses photos de champignons sont aussi à des différentes pages sur l'Internet. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete
99.99% copyvio. TED 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)100% copyvio according to Cymbella (see below) TED 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)- Ces investigations ressemblent à de l'inquisition, ici le sujet c'est le vase Vase-jobvilla.png et il n'y a pas de raison de douter que Breuglius ait pris la photo en début d'exposition comme il l'a expliqué. --Bildoj (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- La discussion à laquelle tu fais référence (et que tu n'as pas citée) est bien : User talk:Breugelius#La source de ce fichier n'est pas indiquée : File:Vase-jobvilla.png ? Étant donné que pour environ 100 photos de champignons supprimées pour copyvio avéré, il avait mis en description : « Source : travail perosnnel » (ce qui était faux), il me paraît important de signaler ici que le fait qu'il prétende que cette photo est un travail personnel peut être mis en doute. Étant donné que dans les commentaires sur l'historique du fichier, il cite « Source=Université de Liège », il me paraît important de dire qu'il ne travaille pas à l'Université de Liège, il cite aussi « Permission=OTRS, ticket numéro 2009021410013529 » qui ne concerne en rien l'exposition en question, mais un livre et un site internet sur le village d'Olne. Pour en revenir à l'exposition, sur le site cité au début par Stefan4, il y a plusieurs photos de même type, et je comprends mal : comment une photo de Breugelius aurait été mise sur le site internet du musée, alors que les autres qui lui ressemblent (même fond, même lumière, même détourage) auraient été prises par le musée ? Ou alors, Breugelius a pris toutes les photos ? Mais il ne les a pas mises sur commons, et elles sont sur le site du musée ? Ou alors le musée a pris toutes les photos, et Breugelius en a copié une ? TED 00:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ces investigations ressemblent à de l'inquisition, ici le sujet c'est le vase Vase-jobvilla.png et il n'y a pas de raison de douter que Breuglius ait pris la photo en début d'exposition comme il l'a expliqué. --Bildoj (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : Cette image est de meilleure qualité, celle de Breugelius est plus floue, avec un bord blanc en son sommet, caractéristique de plusieurs de ses imports, que j'impute pour ma part à un mauvais rognage d'une saisie d'écran. Présumé coupable. Totodu74 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- J'ai écrit au Musée pour demander des infos sur l'auteur de la photo publiée ici et qui semble correspondre à la référence citée par Breugelius (cf. aussi [11]) - Cymbella (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : Un extrait de la réponse du conservateur du Grand Curtius "la photographie du vase à bustes de Jupille n'est pas libre de droit. Il s'agit d'un cliché pris par le photographe de la Ville de Liège, M. Marc Verpoorten. Monsieur Moutschen l'a diffusée sur de nombreux sites wikipédia, sans aucune autorisation, et a publié une partie de mes textes, sans m'avoir consulté au préalable (et sans avoir indiqué clairement la source d'origine : le catalogue du Grand Curtius)." - Cymbella (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Texte et photographie sont deux choses différente, il semble que photographier le vase n'était ni interdit, ni difficile donc tout est tout à fait possible. --Bildoj (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- La photo soi-disant prise par Breugelius est en réalité celle-ci : il s'agit très clairement d'un copyvio (ce contributeur est coutumier du fait...) -> suppression immédiate ! Cymbella (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Texte et photographie sont deux choses différente, il semble que photographier le vase n'était ni interdit, ni difficile donc tout est tout à fait possible. --Bildoj (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Sreejithk2000 as (Copyright violation: copyright violation) JuTa 07:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A useless category for just one picture. Sreejith K (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment DR originally by User:Hydro, [12], 2012-03-10, --Rosenzweig τ 21:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Help the millions of non-users
I just spent a second photo. But I am creating categories to help and invite the rest of the world to spent more and better ones to make Wikimedia Foundation greater than just the uploads of only everytime the same 1.000 users. World, you are welcome. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Even two pictures are no reason for creating a new category. A reasonable category should contain at least ten files. --Hydro (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: the ten file rule is on de: not on commons. This is a normal category for a person. JuTa 07:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, didn't realize until after I uploaded Craigboy (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don’t understand. The source mentioned on the file page explicitly mentions that "No copyright protection is asserted for this photograph. If a recognizable person appears in this photograph, use for commercial purposes may infringe a right of privacy or publicity." It would appear to me that this is no different from thousands of images put in the public domain which depict recognizable persons. I suggest we keep the photo. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- In the "PHOTO CREDIT" section, NASA is given credit for creating the image but in the description it is revealed that SpaceX created it. I believe the NASA credit and the image use policy was posted mistakenly. Although we may need to contact the KSC media office for confirmation.--Craigboy (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Well seen (I had missed it too). I support the deletion, in my opinion it’s not worth tracking the owner to obtain permission. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- In the "PHOTO CREDIT" section, NASA is given credit for creating the image but in the description it is revealed that SpaceX created it. I believe the NASA credit and the image use policy was posted mistakenly. Although we may need to contact the KSC media office for confirmation.--Craigboy (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion JuTa 07:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
