Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in the UK for 2D object. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Oops... Should not have been moved. MGA73 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious flickr account (had a few photos at the time of nomination, taken with different cameras; account registered in 2010, looks like a group account, yet no flickr profile). The flickr uploader claims this as a recent photo, whereas it was posted in 2003 here [1]; low resolution, no EXIF. Materialscientist (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Materialscientis If that is the case, www.lajiribilla.cu is a Cuban domain which do not have copyrights under american law, considering that Cuba does not respect international copyrights laws.
- In order to be on Wikimedia Commons, a file must be free in both the source country and in the United States. If this file is non-free in Cuba, then it unfortunately qualifies for deletion. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not the flag of Svalbard. It is a fantasy flag and has never existed in real life. The description and title is false. The flag copyright label is false. It can not be in the public domain as it is not the flag of Svalbard, but the creative product of some person who uploaded it somewhere. Inge (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The mentioned source Uncyclopedia is not a source of information, but a joke page. This file is both untrue in terms of information, has a false copyright tag and is possibly a copyright violation. Inge (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep It's a fictional flag, but that's not a reason for deletion. Look at Category:Special or fictional flags. And it is indeed PD because it's a simple nordic cross and the polar bear is from File:Coat of arms Greenland.svg. Fry1989 eh? 21:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete This isn't a useful fictional flag; as far as I can tell, it's something someone made up in their basement one day. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The file is not in use, there is no imagined used for this flag. So there is the scope issue. While the copyright is correct, I do not forsee any usage on here and just sticking it in a category would just not work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Deleted...It's not the official Svalbard's flags...--Gigillo83 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, belongs into the family album :) Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
fan image, no use on commons Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. As long as I understand, this person is not notable. And both images are not in use.
Takabeg (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope 99of9 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused, incorrect, replaced map - therefore out of scope. Bulwersator (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Denyshel (talk · contribs). Looks like collection of promo photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted all as out of project scope self-promotional pictures George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Just simple text in a jpg, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this picture is taken from a dealer's or auction's website and is not the original work of Sachervelle. Looking at their account I recognise many copyrighted images from Victoria and Albert Museum, Metropolitan Museum, LACMA, and dealer sites such as antiquedress.com. Mabalu (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete photo stolen from this 2006 auction by bad flickruser Sacheverelle. --Martin H. (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - apparent Flickr-washing Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this picture is taken from a dealer's or auction's website and is not the original work of Sachervelle. Looking at their account I recognise many copyrighted images from Victoria and Albert Museum, Metropolitan Museum, LACMA, and dealer sites such as antiquedress.com. Mabalu (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, bad flickr user. At this forum the same person was at least able to give credit to the true source, at flickr Sacheverelle is only uploading stuff grabbed from elsewhere without any attribution or source mention and with invalid licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - apparent Flickr-washing Kaldari (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this picture is taken from a museum website and is not the original work of Sachervelle. Looking at their account I recognise many copyrighted images from Victoria and Albert Museum, Metropolitan Museum, LACMA, and dealer sites such as antiquedress.com. Mabalu (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Photo taken from posting #8 in this forum, there a source is credited. Evidence: Bad flickruser Sachervelle is a member of that forum too, the forum posting pre-date the upload to her copyright infringement collection on flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - apparent Flickr-washing Kaldari (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this picture is taken from a museum's, dealer's or auction's website and is not the original work of Sachervelle. Looking at their account I recognise many copyrighted images from Victoria and Albert Museum, Metropolitan Museum, LACMA, and dealer sites such as antiquedress.com. Mabalu (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Photo taken in June 2007, in September 2007 it was already used here giving credit to an auction website. Only in July 2008 it was uploaded to flickr, bad flickr user collecting images from the web. Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Good catch, Malibu. I didn't do any research into it, assuming that the user just uploaded photos that they had taken of museum exhibitions. Too bad! OttawaAC (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - apparent Flickr-washing Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope private pic. George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused privale pic. George Chernilevsky talk 10:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
and File:Latinasanpedro.jpg, File:Ulatinaheredia.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
and other photos by Luffis (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Logo- Possibly copyvio. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of the Beach Boys. Can't believe it's not copyrighted. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete looks like copvio: Photo by Capitol Records Archive / Copyright ©2012 Rolling Stone [[2]] --AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete License wrong, permission wrong. Should be a speedy --Funfood ␌ 00:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted Nokia software screenshot. Sreejith K (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
better resolution: File:Space Center Bremen.jpg Flor!an (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and upload the high resolution image as a new version of File:Space Center Bremen 03.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Flominator Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. All image uploaded by User:Mustafa Kumbar must not be {{Own work}} of this uploader.
- File:Besiktas Inonu Stadium.jpg this image was posted to wowturkey on May 3. 2006 by Mustafa Kumbar.
- File:BJK Inonu Stadium in Istanbul.jpg This image was posted to wowturey on May 6, 2006 by Mustafa Kumbar.
- File:Dolmabahçe Palace.jpg this image was posted to wowturkey on July 30, 2006 by Mustafa Kumbar.
- File:Kalamış Marina.jpg this image was posted to wowturey on September 1, 2006 by Mustafa Kumbar.
- File:Aerial view of Galatasaray Lisesi.jpg this image was posted to wowturkey on July 1, 2007 by Mustafa Kumbar.
According to this statement of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Mustafa Kumbar in Wikimedia should be the sockpuppet of Shuppiluliuma. And as long as I know, few users (especially users from Turkey) use their own real name here. So I think that this useris not Mustafa Kumbar in wowTurkey. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterfront houses on the Bosphorus.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Ezarateesteban 22:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be from the University of Michigan athletics site: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/012611aaa.html While the article is after the upload, the absence of useful source information and tiny size indicates this is a press photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
and File:1 ميشيل كيلو.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
and File:Aziz1.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
File:01 106 Book illustrations of Historical description of the clothes and weapons of Russian troops.jpg Gandvik (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - low-quality duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to duplicate Sreejith K (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 5-antoine-5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unfree web images, most of them with own work claims.
- File:Mairie de Vavincourt.jpg - site image
- File:Eglise de Vavincourt.jpg - site image (Nicolas Aubry Photographe)
- File:Behonne.jpg & File:Behonne fontaine.jpg - [3] © 2012 Communauté de communes de Bar-le-Duc
- just google yourself
- File:Apocalypse, Hitler.jpg
- File:ImagesCA1CM26K.jpg
- File:Mairie de Vavincourt.jpg
- File:Eglise de Vavincourt.jpg
- File:Logo de Behonne.jpg
- File:Behonne.jpg
- File:Logo USBL (Union Sportive Behonne Longeville).jpg
- File:Behonne fontaine.jpg
- File:Behonne eglise.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
RE rillke questions? 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Rillke Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Architectural models protected by the copyright of the model builder
- File:Lille PdBA plan relief ypres.JPG
- File:Lille PdBA plan relief aire.JPG
- File:Lille PdBA plan relief bergues.JPG
- File:Lille PdBA maquette.JPG
Vera (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Models are from the eighteenth century (see here Palais des Beaux-arts)...--Velvet (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Does this also applyt to File:Lille PdBA maquette.JPG? looks modern--Vera (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright on the models anymore. -- Laberkiste (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
kept, the model builder died more than 100 years ago so DP (File:Lille PdBA maquette.JPG is a different case). VIGNERON (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
i want to deleted this file NikDexter (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You aren't the owner of the user page Ezarateesteban 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tomtom1995 (talk · contribs)
[edit]spam, unknown loan company.
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look useful (out of scope) Andre Engels (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It is unlikely that this image was the "own work" of the uploader, judging by the dubious nature of most of the other files uploaded by him/her. There is no metadata, with camera details or date that the image was actually taken, and I suspect that this has been copied from another website. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that Regeneración TV approved the stated licensing. For some unknown reason, the {{No permission since}} tag was removed by SethAllen623. According to the file description, this is a screenshot of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifuewycIwkg, which is marked Standard Youtube License, not Creative Commons Attribution. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I removed the "No Permission" tag because the screen capture was stated to be from a video originally created by Regeneración TV, and that organization was claimed as the image's author. Besides, I thought that it would be usable in biographies of Andrés Manuel López Obrador on Wikipedia; however, this supposition may also be considered false, as there are already a number of usable photographs of him on Commons. Under those circumstances, if OTRS can confirm the image properly, then it may be kept; if not, then it should be deleted. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, April 2, 2012, 19:29 UTC.- Agree delete because the video is not uploaded by cc licence,clearly copyviolation.--Augusto664 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per consensus, and not free licensed Ezarateesteban 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the legitimate copyright holder approved the stated licensing. Without confirmation through OTRS, there is no way to tell whether the uploader, Marketing42 is a legal representative of the stated copyright holder, NBB Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte GmbH. For some unknown reason, the {{No permission since}} tag was removed by SethAllen623. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I apologize for removing the "No Permission" tag from the image; I removed it because of how I interpreted the file's origin. Here is my explanation of this: With one look at the user name "Marketing42", I was certain that this uploader must be in charge of marketing matters for the company to which the depicted store pertains. At this point, since this photograph would prove useful for Wikipedia articles relating to the chain in question, I do not want it to be deleted; I believe that it would be prudent for the community to leave the image alone and wait for OTRS officials to confirm the licensing properly. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, April 1, 2012, 17:05 UTC.
Deleted: not free licensed, restore it when OTRS permission is sended Ezarateesteban 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
duplicate file [File:01 106 Book illustrations of Historical description of the clothes and weapons of Russian troops.jpg] Gandvik (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Page redirected Ezarateesteban 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from www.eldia.es ? [4] Selligpau (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, certainly a copyvio (and what about File:Stiv160607.jpg ?). Defeder (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from www.eldia.es ? [5] Selligpau (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Too sophisticated for PD-German-logo? If yes, we need permission. RE rillke questions? 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png -- RE rillke questions? 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per my comments at C:DR/File:Opel logo 2009.png. Also, this has to be mergeed there since it is basically the same logo. Tbhotch (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png RE rillke questions? 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Does not meet the threshold of originality? You're kidding me. False license. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Striked out the nomination for now, might get back on it later. Image does not qualify for use on nl-wiki though. Woodcutterty (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Denniss (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Bo jak jest logo, to nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 77.254.61.186 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It has been suggested in earlier deletion discussions that this logo is not copyrighted, because it's just a combination of a circle and a blitz and therefore does not meet the threshold of originality. This is obviously false: not only is it not just a combination of a circle and a blitz (it's a circle, a blitz, the words 'opel' and the slogan 'Wir Leben Autos' in a chrome design), it is generally accepted (at least in European jurisprudence) that even though the individual elements of a work might not be eligible for copyright protection, the combination of these elements may constitute a work of art. I believe that is the case here, so I propose to delete it, taking into account the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't know that a finding by a court that the threshold of originality is lower than was previously assumed works retroactively, then there's really no point in explaining anything to you. Whether or not a creation is eligible for copyright protection is not solely determined by the standards at the time of creation. Woodcutterty (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
_pic2_Logo-only.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, per before, before, before, my comment above, and that the reason for being nominated (translated from Polish) is not a valid delete reason. Tbhotch™ 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: As per others. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason – his reason translated into English is "Because under the logo there is unnecessary phrase Wir leben Autos". Also this and other nominations of this guy look like vandalism to me so I've already reverted them. --jdx Re: 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 78.10.135.248 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Vandalism – no valid reason. --jdx Re: 12:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Non-free media, uploader is not the author or cannot be identified as the author (fraudulent information provided). Woodcutterty (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Don´t worry. I am the owner of the picture. I will found out how to registrate the picture. If you have advice....please.
This is the reference number of registration: 2012040210002679
- I've added the OTRS template to the image (without logging in by accident) and I hereby confirm that Omulders5000 did send the permissions of this picture under OTRS ticket #2012040210002679. Best regards, Freaky Fries (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Where did the background image come from? User's other upload was a lolcat copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, put salt in the mouth, and cut the tree down - Background image is copyvio, as same as File:Awesome Cat.jpg, according to User talk:JasonDomination. This image may or may not be replaced with an image of a PayPal Donate button. I caught User:JasonDomination who made WMC his or her sandbox. Plus this image uses the COMIC SANS font, which is too kiddy for me. Who cares enough to see this image on WMC or use this image in any website? This copyvio image needs to be deleted and stay deleted. Could be nose of toy character from HTF, which is protected by copyright. --189.70.92.232 21:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal image, not in use. Unclear license on background. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Märkisches Viertel.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete these files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Märkisches Viertel.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Zehlendorf.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Zehlendorf.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It's pretty common to keep the old version as they differ pretty much. --Sanandros (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Zehlendorf.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicate. --Jcb (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Wittenau.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Wilmersdorf.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by File:Berlin Ortsteil Wilmersdorf.svg Arbalete (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Mariendorf.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Mariendorf.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: This image was not the same as the one suggested to replace it. No problem to keep both. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Hellersdorf.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Hellersdorf.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicates. --Jcb (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Frohnau.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Frohnau.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Gatow.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Gatow.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Gesundbrunnen.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Gesundbrunnen.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It's pretty common to keep the files as there are pretty diffrent. --Sanandros (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by a better map (File:Berlin Ortsteil Gesundbrunnen.svg). I'm the author of this file Arbalete (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicate. --Jcb (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Substituted by Image:Berlin Ortsteil Gropiusstadt.svg Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image to be deleted is different from the one to be kept, so both can stay at Commons. No copyright problems found. Alpertron (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The user uploaded a scan from a copyrighted comicbook under a Commons License with no source stating that it was indeed released by the owner for such a fashion. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: a Denniss (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: original image restored Denniss (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of the Beach Boys, can't believe this isn't copyrighted. Furthermore, horrible file format and web resolution. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The version here is clearly a cropped and adjusted version of one shown at this location [6]. I have not yet found any copyright information, but the cropping strongly suggests that this is not an original image of the uploader.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Passes threshold of originality IMO, and own work doubtful. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Appears to be a false claim of ownership.—Bill william comptonTalk 03:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 23#File:HarazRoad.jpg. Procedural nomination; harmonizing deletion request across projects. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No source.—Bill william comptonTalk 04:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A 1930s photograph, no infos on author, possibly not PD. A.Savin 20:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no proper source Polarlys (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
a picture of not notable person Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Out of scope, unless uploader gives any assertion.—Bill william comptonTalk 04:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is in PD, Govt. of Kerala encyclopedia also shows no link for the image, It is not clearely sourced ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - In the photo, I see the women not wearning anything to cover her breasts. This was the traditional Nair attire until they started using Rauka in early 20th century. Also, the men are seen having Kudumi hairstyle which were also a thing from early 20th century. I see no reason to doubt the PD status. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- From this page in Malayalam [7], it looks like the photo was published first in the travelogues by Dutch travelers in the 17th century, mostly the one by John Newhalf. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Provide source for this particular image (2 images) The link doesn't shows this photograph. if the photograph never published before it will not come in PD..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that you read neither my comment nor the article I linked. If you did not see one of the images there, here is the direct link -> http://dutchinkerala.com/keralaculture/namboothiries.jpg.
Btw, the photos were published in the book written by Johan Nieuhof and it was published at least 300 years ago--Sreejith K (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)- The images (2 images) are not from the book of Johan Nieuhof as there is no varifyable evidences available that this image was available in an "unknown" book written by Johan Nieuhof Please refer his works for more information. During the period of Johan Nieuhof there was no camera invented for this type of photography, First practical photographic camera was on 1826. The article which you have linked has been created based on a new age book developed by K. Shiv Sankar Nair and published on 1996. Hence the PD claim of this image will not be valid.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, I did not think about that angle. The picture is obviously not 300 years old, may be a 100. I will have to check other sources. This picture might be from the same book where File:Nair Women.jpg was published, but I have not yet found it. Will do it in my spare time. You can also help us, if you wish to. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The images (2 images) are not from the book of Johan Nieuhof as there is no varifyable evidences available that this image was available in an "unknown" book written by Johan Nieuhof Please refer his works for more information. During the period of Johan Nieuhof there was no camera invented for this type of photography, First practical photographic camera was on 1826. The article which you have linked has been created based on a new age book developed by K. Shiv Sankar Nair and published on 1996. Hence the PD claim of this image will not be valid.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that you read neither my comment nor the article I linked. If you did not see one of the images there, here is the direct link -> http://dutchinkerala.com/keralaculture/namboothiries.jpg.
- Provide source for this particular image (2 images) The link doesn't shows this photograph. if the photograph never published before it will not come in PD..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- From this page in Malayalam [7], it looks like the photo was published first in the travelogues by Dutch travelers in the 17th century, mostly the one by John Newhalf. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that requesting deletion is exagerating for such old image. I see to doubt PD in this case. Yann (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- As Captainofhope says, this cannot be as old an image as Sreejith believes -- photography began in the middle 19th century. If Sreejith can give us a date that makes sense, fine, but a photograph from 300 years ago is not possible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- That was stupid of me, I agree.
. Striking it out hence. An approximate age of the image and the rationale to think that way is given in my first comment. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- That was stupid of me, I agree.
- As Captainofhope says, this cannot be as old an image as Sreejith believes -- photography began in the middle 19th century. If Sreejith can give us a date that makes sense, fine, but a photograph from 300 years ago is not possible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Off Topic (Different Image discussion)
|
|---|
|
- The following questions are not yet answered for claiming PD status for this image in source country and USA
- When it was first published..?
- Where it was first published..? (Location is important)
- Author details..??
- --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The following questions are not yet answered for claiming PD status for this image in source country and USA
Keep DR is an example of misused policies --Praveen:talk 03:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Government of Kerala published the image in GFDL license.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep old image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The lack of information is a problem given the lack of a date or source information (the link is dead). My comments here are also relevant. CT Cooper · talk 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The link isn't dead. See http://mal.sarva.gov.in/index.php?title=File:Nair11.png, all though there isn't much information over there apart from the license under which Government of Kerala has published the image and associated contents. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I tried the link again and left it to load for three minutes until the connection was reset; I then tried again and the same thing happened; the government's servers seem to be having problems. In any case, for reasons I said in a post on my talk page, the image should be uploaded as just PD or as copyrighted by the government but released under the GFDL, not both. CT Cooper · talk 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The link isn't dead. See http://mal.sarva.gov.in/index.php?title=File:Nair11.png, all though there isn't much information over there apart from the license under which Government of Kerala has published the image and associated contents. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The link is active now, But there is no PD license for this image, Only a whole site GFDL only available (1.2)-...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Logo. Possibly copyright violation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo. Does not meet the threshold of originality to be copyrightable. Fma12 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Fma12. Dipankan001 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the disputed tag; the image shows a background and a foreground. The background is all black; the foreground is too complex for copyright. While it is possible one might consider this image to be "calligraphy" or "simple text" and thus ineligible for copyright by US laws, it's also possible a court could rule this is a computer-created image (not hand created) and thus copyrightable for the very reasons I've just given; thus I believe we ought to delete the image per COM:PCP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think the foreground is not so complex (just a texture or a "fog" effect) to be copyrightable. Fma12 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- How is a "fog" effect not copyrightable? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Should it be?... Talking seriously, I think this slight effect does not meet the threshold of originality, to consider the logo copyrightable rather than simple text. Fma12 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- How is a "fog" effect not copyrightable? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: far beneath threshold of originality SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If partly the work of http://www.uniforminsignia.org/, then this is a derivative work and thus a copyright violation. If the additions from that website are trivial, we are OK, but the uploader gives us no explanation either way so we must delete this per COM:PCP unless other evidence is provided. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: low resolution, rounded corners, uploaders reputation Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I am who mounted the image and edited into picnik redondie corners and apply the complete elimination of it, I say that is copyright and am solely responsible for it. (I do not speak English).--D vsquez (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You can comment in Spanish. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Something fishy here. "Open source content management" suggests that this might be open source, yet the source web site states "©2004–2011 by Website Baker Org e.V. , all rights reserved" at the bottom of the page. The Legal Notice & Privacy Policy also suggests that it is unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Legal Notice & Privacy Policy say that the site content is for non commercial use thus unsuitable for WC SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
SVG-duplicate of File:CIA WorldFactBook-Political world.pdf. This file is broken and its size is ~10 times the size of the original pdf-file. Thus its useless. McZusatz (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Is "SVG-duplicate" a special term or policy? I don't remember something like that and I suppose it is not a valid reason to delete such an SVG file whose PDF version exists. Being useless is also not a valid reason, besides this is not useless, it is one of the largest and most complicated SVG images at Wikimedia Commons, it can help to study SVG format or how to convert PDF to SVG and minified SVG, or help SVG editors to improve the image. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Theres a way to fix the problems: User:Moyogo/SVG_Maps. --McZusatz (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: "Displaced elements" is not a reason for deleting SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
unsourced photo's. The photo's in the top right corner are too old to have been taken in the past 5 years. Second from the left looks like its from a movie Vera (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- second photo is from movie Cilvēka bērns --Dark Eagle (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added missing information to the description of the image. The photo in the top right corner is from here: http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Att%C4%93ls:Francis_kemps.jpg . The person seen on this photo is deceased. The 2 persons on the other black&white photo are deceased. The color photos have been taken by me personally during the last 5 years, except for one, which is from the movie, as Vera noticed and Dark Eagle explained. Please help me with suggestions, if replacing the image from the movie with a part of this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cilveka_100.jpg (picturing the same boy) will solve the problem. --Stiernīts (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think they are worried that the image from the movie is not a free image, which means it can only be used on the page about that movie, but nowhere else. If you want, I can cut that one out for you. Penyulap ☏ 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I added missing information to the description of the image. The photo in the top right corner is from here: http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Att%C4%93ls:Francis_kemps.jpg . The person seen on this photo is deceased. The 2 persons on the other black&white photo are deceased. The color photos have been taken by me personally during the last 5 years, except for one, which is from the movie, as Vera noticed and Dark Eagle explained. Please help me with suggestions, if replacing the image from the movie with a part of this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cilveka_100.jpg (picturing the same boy) will solve the problem. --Stiernīts (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Ulis.vnuhn (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Totally unclear authorship and copyright status. Same goes for all other uploads of this user (see Special:Contributions/Zandweb) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted Windows software screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep That picture is CC-BY 3.0 . Instead of nominating that picture for deletion, try to modify the mobile phone's screen. --112.210.77.210 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free software. Msaynevirta (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --JuTa 21:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No permission, file description page states: 'No permission to copy of edit, must get approved by the author please'. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- hello this is my mother's paternal grandfather - Catarino Vergara. My mother had this picture in the family album photo of memories. So this is a personal copy right photo of my greatgrandfather which belongs to me - Miguel Salinas Vergara. Thank You.
- First we need to know the name of the photographer. Then we need permission of the photographer or his/her heirs. That permission must include permission to copy and permission to edit, otherwise the file will not be free enough to stay. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This image is the proprietary computer icon for Microsoft Visual C# and is uploaded under the pretext of being made up of text and very simple shapes only. Well, I definitely see s lot more than very simple shapes.and text. This image is marked as copyright-protected in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: beneath threshold of originality SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
copyright protected artwork
galaxy note box
[edit]- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2565.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2564.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2563.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2562.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2561.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2560.JPG
android snapshots
[edit]- File:Ml new chillu problem while using locale-2.png
- File:Wikipedia andoid app menu in ml using locale-2.png
- File:Photo editor andoid app in ml using locale-2 .png
- File:News app in ml in android using locale-2.png
discussion
[edit]Vera (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- How this could be copyrighted? If you look at the images of Samsung Galaxy note, these are 3D images of phone. Also On the android app snapshots, what are the copy righted items?--Rameshng (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- the snapshots are stills from non-opensource software. The OS is opensource, yes. But Samsung launcher and photo editor is not. The box can be seen as an original artwork with copyright protected photo's --Vera (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The following looks de-minimis to me.
- --Sreejith K (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon here, as I am still a learner on copyright violations. Recently some of my uploads got deleted and I came to know that it was my mistake of uploading the images of 2D images, which is a copyrighted work. Now in this cases of the galaxy note and Android snaps, it looks again copyright violations. I would really like to understand where is it been violated. I request and appreciate if the the deletion nominator can explain as specific snaps with reason, rather putting multiples things under same nomination. I never use the habit of comparing other similar images, if there is a nomination for deletion on specific things. Lets talk on specific. If I wanted to compare, I could give plenty of examples of mobile handset, os snapshots. I dont think thats the right way of doing it in wikipedia. But this nomination for deletion looks to me as a discourage and humiliation unless told with reasons. --Rameshng (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The box is in essence a 2D image onto itself, since the top cover has a stylized photograph of the Galaxy Note. Now Sreejith K thinks the picture taken from the side of the box has too little of this front picture to be considered a copyright violation. The interface design of the software on the android also has an author. In the case of opensource software this right has been given away and for that reason screenshots of those applications can be published here on Wikipedia under the same license as the software, usually GNU. Now, the phone companies themselves have been fighting legal battles among themselves to what extend their interfaces can be considered original works. The screenshots mentioned by Sreejith K are by his standards too little original to be eligible for copyright protection. I think they are not since two contain unsourced photographs that might be protected and the third contains logo's that are too complex. Now, the images in the two might be your own work. In that case it might be prudent (and a lot of work) to list the links to those images as the source material. The interface design itself can be considered ineligable. in that case the appropriate tag to use on it is {{PD-ineligible}}, since it is not your own work, but the product of the software. --Vera (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- An idea might be to instead of encircling the Wikipedia logo, you blur out the rest of the picture. You may also find Commons:Image casebook useful. --Vera (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The box is in essence a 2D image onto itself, since the top cover has a stylized photograph of the Galaxy Note. Now Sreejith K thinks the picture taken from the side of the box has too little of this front picture to be considered a copyright violation. The interface design of the software on the android also has an author. In the case of opensource software this right has been given away and for that reason screenshots of those applications can be published here on Wikipedia under the same license as the software, usually GNU. Now, the phone companies themselves have been fighting legal battles among themselves to what extend their interfaces can be considered original works. The screenshots mentioned by Sreejith K are by his standards too little original to be eligible for copyright protection. I think they are not since two contain unsourced photographs that might be protected and the third contains logo's that are too complex. Now, the images in the two might be your own work. In that case it might be prudent (and a lot of work) to list the links to those images as the source material. The interface design itself can be considered ineligable. in that case the appropriate tag to use on it is {{PD-ineligible}}, since it is not your own work, but the product of the software. --Vera (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon here, as I am still a learner on copyright violations. Recently some of my uploads got deleted and I came to know that it was my mistake of uploading the images of 2D images, which is a copyrighted work. Now in this cases of the galaxy note and Android snaps, it looks again copyright violations. I would really like to understand where is it been violated. I request and appreciate if the the deletion nominator can explain as specific snaps with reason, rather putting multiples things under same nomination. I never use the habit of comparing other similar images, if there is a nomination for deletion on specific things. Lets talk on specific. If I wanted to compare, I could give plenty of examples of mobile handset, os snapshots. I dont think thats the right way of doing it in wikipedia. But this nomination for deletion looks to me as a discourage and humiliation unless told with reasons. --Rameshng (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to better understand the issues which you are pointing out in each File. I feel you are talking to generic or looks like you are pushing your point of views here.
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2565.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2564.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2563.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2561.JPG
- File:Samsung galaxy Note - Snap 2560.JPG
The above three images has a samsung logo in it. What is the copyrighted here? Samsung Logo?
- Not permissible, the artwork on the cover is protected. It has a whole stylized drawing on the screen of the Note. Logo is not the issue. --Vera (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you help me in understanding what is copyrighted here as violated?
- Yeah, I guess this one can stay--Vera (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:Ml new chillu problem while using locale-2.png
- File:News app in ml in android using locale-2.png
What is copyrighted here in this? What logo? Is that pics? Fonts pics, which are copy righted. Look at the resolution!
- It's on the edge but I think I will allow it. License should be changed to {{PD-ineligible}}
what is the violated here?
- The logo's have been designed by somebody. Sreejith K thinks they aren't complex enough, I do.
Photo editor app. The interface , you mean to say it is copyrighted to the author? So means, I cant take a snapshot.
- Not permissible, this snapshot has complex artwork on it. It is no different than the photo of photo's case. --Vera (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would still like to see an option to retaining these images, if a change in license is possible. Rather you try to demolish something, I would like to save with some alterations. Please try to help!--Rameshng (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Changed two licenses. Leaving rest of all to you . Please keep possible ones, screw rest of them. Of course that's another learning for me. I will try to take care on the future. By the way, you could scan some more of my upload, you may find more. I would still like to be learning from my mistakes.--Rameshng (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
partial delete--Vera (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
labels of bottles protected by copyright.
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8351.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8350.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8349.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8348.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8347.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8346.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8345.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8344.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8343.JPG
Vera (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- No more comments. I think I have discussed the possible reasons in the above discussion of earlier deletion requests. If you can give me an option to save this images from deletion, requests please give me. Else delete it.--Rameshng (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete only that COM:DM doesn't apply Ezarateesteban 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
2 photographs of photographs. 3 photographs of what could be considered 3D modern art.
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8338.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8317.JPG
- File:Snap from total Mall in old airport road - Bangalore 8316.JPG
- File:RVM Shivmandir - old airport road - murugeshpalya - Bangalore 8273.JPG
- File:RVM Shivmandir - old airport road - murugeshpalya - Bangalore 8272.JPG
Vera (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- No more comments. I think I have discussed the possible reasons in the above discussion of earlier deletion requests. If you can give me an option to save this images from deletion, requests please give me. Else delete it.--Rameshng (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Partially deleted; the rest is DM. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Operation Grapple
[edit]- File:Grapple Orange Herald 001.jpg
- File:Grapple Orange Herald 002.jpg
- File:Grapple Orange Herald 003.jpg
- File:Grapple Orange Herald 004.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 001.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 002.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 003.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 004.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 005.jpg
- File:Grapple Short Granite 006.jpg
- And also File:Orange Herald Small nuclear test device.jpg
For 1-10 there are no clear connections with UKGov. Links lead to non-UGGov site. More over these are not photowork, but single shots from film (audio-visual work)[8],[9]. 11th was taken from book and there is not clear connections with UKGov. Alex Spade (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is just common sense. These are all shots of UK nuclear tests. These were highly classified operations conducted by the UK government, which obviously didn't allow anyone else to take photographs. Thus these are UK government works. Which website they end up on decades later is irrelevant. Bomazi (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is still problem, that these (1-10) are not photographs/photoworks. Photographs is not equal to single shots from film. Current template says only about photographs. Alex Spade (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that it would be covered by point 3 of the license template. Bomazi (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. Artistic works (in UK copyright law (and in many others copyright laws also)) are paintings, drawings, engravings, sculptures, photographs, diagrams, maps, works of architecture and works of artistic craftsmanship [10], [11] (Part I. Section I. 4.). Films are included in other group ( (Part I. Section I. 5.), and "photograph"... is not part of film (Part I. Section I. 4.). Alex Spade (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that it would be covered by point 3 of the license template. Bomazi (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is still problem, that these (1-10) are not photographs/photoworks. Photographs is not equal to single shots from film. Current template says only about photographs. Alex Spade (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per Bomazi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Эти фотографии могли быть сделаны автоматическими фотокамерами на том же самолёте. Карма2
- We have already known (see [12],[13]), that these are not photographs, and these are shots from film. Alex Spade (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)