Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/07
 |
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}
,_a_Superb_Portrait.jpg){kind=link}
,_Tsar_of_Bulgaria_(893-927_C.E.),_a_Testimony_of_the_Byzantine_Influence_on_the_Bulgarian_Court.jpg){kind=link}
,_a_Majestic_Depiction_of_Ares_in_Bronze.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_a_Scarce_Anepigraphic_Composition.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - it is a freely licensed viewable copy of the state of the Tycho Brahe book from 2009 (linked from w:en:Talk:Tycho Brahe/Archive 2), and nothing is gained by deleting this. If it clutters a category, it could be moved to a less visible categpry. -84user (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment In 2009 I investigated the degraded image quality in PDFs generated from Wikipedia books and reported the problem here : w:en:Help:Books/Feedback/Archives/2009/March#Images quality and GIF animations - although this PDF was not linked in that discussion (now affected by creeping Wikipedia:Link rot), it can be used to check the quality problem and possible workaround. -84user (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- If an on-wiki discussion links to it, there's a reason to keep. I cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
image of unremarkable image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
image of unremarkable person, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
image of unremarkable person, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
image of unremarkable person, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism, abusive graffiti bezik (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad retouch of a stolen photo. Martin H. (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
THis may be PD in the USA, but it may not be in Germany, its country of origin. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- While Norddeutscher Lloyd was a company head-quartered in Germany, the country of origin of this poster is the US. It was made by its US offices to advertise the company's sailings from New York to European ports, to those resident in America. Note the use of English, and the text "The Four Flyers ... leave NEW YORK on Tuesdays for BREMEN Via PLYMOUTH (London) and CHERBOURG (Paris). Benea (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep US publication before 1923. -- 178.191.248.127 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom. Thank you Benea for the clarification. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism, abusive graffiti, recidivation (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Larry Elllison zhlop.jpg), bezik (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Non admin closure, file has already been deleted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
is duplicate of File:Tatra KT4DtM.jpg – JBarta (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate High Contrast (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
homepage screenshot with likely copyrighted content High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
homepage screenshot with likely copyrighted content High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a modern sculpture created in 2011 [1]. No FoP in Russia and copyrighted in the U.S. as well. A.Savin 11:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand this phrase in the English. Can you, please, in Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Валдес Иванов (talk • contribs)
- Конечно. Произведения изобразительного искусства, в том числе скульптуры, защищены авторским правом, то есть воспроизведение в том числе и в качестве репродукции (фотографии) разрешается только с позволения автора, или же переходит в общественное достояние через 70 лет после его смерти. Если в некоторых странах на находящиеся в общественных местах скульптуры это ограничение при определенных условиях не распространяется (т.н. свобода панорамы = FoP), то в России (а также в США, где стоят серверы Викимедии) по-любому для современной скульптуры нужно разрешение автора. Подробности: ru:Википедия:Свобода панорамы. - A.Savin 16:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Понятно. Тогда вы можете удалить, поскольку у меня нет разрешения от автора скульптуры. Заранее спасибо. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Валдес Иванов (talk • contribs)
- Конечно. Произведения изобразительного искусства, в том числе скульптуры, защищены авторским правом, то есть воспроизведение в том числе и в качестве репродукции (фотографии) разрешается только с позволения автора, или же переходит в общественное достояние через 70 лет после его смерти. Если в некоторых странах на находящиеся в общественных местах скульптуры это ограничение при определенных условиях не распространяется (т.н. свобода панорамы = FoP), то в России (а также в США, где стоят серверы Викимедии) по-любому для современной скульптуры нужно разрешение автора. Подробности: ru:Википедия:Свобода панорамы. - A.Savin 16:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: on uloader's request. A.Savin 10:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: self promotion/advertising High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Included to this DR are as well the following files:
- File:PAYASO CHULISIMO - EN ARGENTINA.JPG
- File:DECORACION CON GLOBOS - GLOBO CORAZON.jpg
- File:BARMAN - EVENTOS NUEVO MILENIO.jpg
- File:DECORACIÓN CON GLOBOS.jpg
- File:BABY SHOWER.jpg
- File:BARMAN.jpg
- File:DESPEDIDA DE SOLTERAS.jpg
- File:ANIMACIÓN MUSICAL.jpg
- File:BARMAN EN ARGENTINA.jpg
- File:CANTANTE CRIOLLA.jpg
- File:FILMACIÓN Y VÍDEOS.gif
- File:HORA LOCA.jpg
- File:DJ EN ARGENTINA.jpg
- File:CARITAS PINTADAS.jpg
- File:DECORACIÓN PARA FIESTAS- 15 AÑOS.jpg
- File:PAYASOS.jpg
- File:ANIMACIÓN PARA FIESTAS.jpg
--High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Frankly the whole lot are speedy to me - they are promotional - plain & simple - as was the user page. --Herby talk thyme 08:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In the absence of other comments and the fact that these images are clearly/unabiguously promotional I am calling them speedy and deleting them. Herby talk thyme 15:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Vanity photo, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Toys are 3D artwork protected by copyright, but cars arent copyright protected. How about a toy car? Vera (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don`t know, how about a toy car. I may delete this file, if something wrong with it. (Please, excuse me for my English, I know this language very bad). Lesless (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I asked in the Russian section because I find it difficult to conduct discussions in English. Lesless (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. We have a category with many car models for a long time. — putnik 08:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Keepthan I'm sorry. happy uploading--Vera (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. — putnik 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
image with copyright watermark, even the original source http://www.mcpriests.com/_spanish/index.html claims copyright over all their contents Ileana n (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
characters, obvious copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
the author cites this source http://kwausa.com/ that claims copyright Ileana n (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture Ileana n (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The description is clear vandalism, and the user isn´t the author, the source says "caca" (poop) Ileana n (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture, out of scope Ileana n (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of scope Ileana n (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, poorly edited image, the subject is not even recognizable Ileana n (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal picture Ileana n (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal picture Ileana n (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, private pic Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
unused, private pic from blog that doesn't exist anymore. no verification possible. out of scope. Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
logo spam, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
unused image (article on enwiki deleted), out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jespinos as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image comes from: [2] Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, uploaded to Panoramio in 2007, good catch. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
tend to say out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, personal photo for userpage, not in use. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Official advertisement photograph, unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Official advertisement photograph, unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
CTBTO Copyright terms (mentioned in the description of the Flickr file) specify that the photos may be used freely for non-commercial purposes (although the copyright tag on Flickr is CC-BY). This discussion should apply to all photos from CTBTO, or at least to those mentioning this terms of use page). Razvan Socol (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I didn't spot that and I wouldn't have uploaded it if I had. Please also delete File:Susan Watts and Raymond Jeanloz CTBTO International Scientific Studies 2009 - day 1.jpg, File:Susan Watts.jpg and File:David Strangway at CTBTO Science and Technology conference.jpg. January (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In metadata: "Copyright status, Copyrighted". Please Delete. The photo is olso in Flickr (with CC-BY-NC License). See:http://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/7008907753/in/photostream Uwe W. (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Works made by U.S. government employees are in the public domain! -- 178.191.248.127 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: U.S. Air Force photo Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: U.S. Air Force photo Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In metadata: "Copyright status, Copyrighted". Please Delete. The photo is olso in Flickr (with CC-BY-NC License). See:http://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/7008907753/in/photostream Uwe W. (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Works made by U.S. government employees are in the public domain! -- 178.191.248.127 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: U.S. Air Force photo Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: U.S. Air Force photo Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
outdated image and probable copyright infringement Dr.pasmartin (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
probably not own work Ginés90 (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation, here is the link: [3], not own work at all. Fma12 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](http://static.tripin.travel/minis/tematicos/ca2011/la-copa-america.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Only private content. GeorgHH • talk 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Too small movie poster(?), out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Blurry unused personal picture, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 21:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as picture has no educational value, per nom even. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably a non-free Internet image. The source site no longer works, so the license can't be verified. It's unlikely that the licensing claims were correct, since the stated license requires attribution of the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong doubt that this professional (Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera) promo shot is own work of the uploader; also found over the web. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Uploader has a history of uploading questionable files. No EXIF, probably a copyvio too. FASTILY (TALK) 23:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- que te paso pendejo, estúpido, idiota, esta imagen yo misma la tome, he quien te crees que eres para marcar mi trabajo, no sabes nada, deberían bloquearte en Wikipedia, eres un pendejo que solo pone plantillas sin revisar ni cuestionar primero la originalidad de la foto User:magideleon
Deleted: Also out of scope? Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Picure of anime character, "L" from Death Note, obvious copyright Ileana n (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
likely copied from a website or scanned from advertising, so probably copy vio. out of scope. Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope; logo of not notable company whose article on nl-wiki has been removed itmt MoiraMoira (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be scanned from a newspaper or magazine. Probably a copyvio FASTILY (TALK) 23:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Silly and needless modification of File:WP10 in Pittsburgh 31.jpg. No encyclopedic use thinkable and this currently nonsense should not count 79.221.111.18 08:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS and likely a personality rights vio per photoshopping of a shot of identifiable living people. Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably not free. ~ Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, www.wwe.com states: '© 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved.' Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment That's for the website. General website copyrights can't apply to th elogos within, which hold their own rights. This however is too complicated to be free. Fry1989 eh? 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. This is clearly not PD-textlogo. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Is not obvious text, but a complex logo russavia (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like book scans, doubtfully own work.
- File:Figura10 1.JPG
- File:Figura10 2.JPG
- File:Figura5 2.JPG
- File:Figura6 1.JPG
- File:Figura6 2.JPG
- File:Figura6 3.JPG
- File:Figura6 4.JPG
- File:Figura6 5.JPG
- File:Figura7 1.JPG
- File:Figura7 3.JPG
- File:Figura7 5.JPG
- File:Figura7 6.JPG
- File:Figura7 7.JPG
- File:Figura7 8.JPG
- File:Figura7 9.JPG
- File:Figura8 3.JPG
- File:Figura8 5.JPG
- File:Figura8 7.JPG
Funfood ␌ 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio uploader. Three examples:
- File:Davao Port by Bernardo Agulo.jpg, from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55198926. The uploader correctly gave the author name in the filename, but in the file description he declared himself, Jaysalva, the author. The file is cropped so that the watermark is no longer visible. The file is unfree.
- File:Davao International Airport2.jpg, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/themarinegeek/6319190594/, the uploader claimed himself the author, the correct author was not mentioned, the copyright owners watermark was cutted away to hide the copyvio uploading.
- File:911 at City Hall.jpg was grabbed from some city blog, slightly retouched, but not own work.
The same applies to the other uploads: Unfree files taken from other websites, from other photographers. Recently, maybe inspired by the watermarks that he derogatoryly removed or forgot to remove such as File:3peace.jpg, the uploader started watermarking his uploads. I.e. File:Davao City Skyline 2011.JPG. But I not trust him.
Finaly, with the below listed files, I count a lot of different cameras:
- Canon EOS40D (File:104lon_hua.jpg)
- Nikon D5000 (File:Chimesmall.jpg)
- Canon PowerShot A54 (File:168_mall1.jpg)
- Canon EOS 1000D (File:ChinatownDVO.jpg)
- Nikon D3100 (File:DC Skyline2011.jpg)
This finding amplifies my impression, that this user can not be trusted.
- File:Chinese Consul-General He Shijingunity.jpg
- File:104lon hua.jpg
- File:HeaderPin.png
- File:DCLAplaza.JPG
- File:168 mall1.jpg
- File:Chimesmall.jpg
- File:3peace.jpg
- File:2friendship.jpg
- File:1unity.jpg
- File:Panochinatown.jpg
- File:Aerial view chinatown.jpg
- File:ChinatownDVO.jpg
- File:DCnight.jpg
- File:DC Skyline2011.jpg
- File:Chinatown Davao.jpg
- File:Apo View.jpg
- File:Marco Polo and AdDU.jpg
- File:Davaodocck8.png
- File:NCCC Mall.jpg
- File:SM City Davao.jpg
- File:Ayala Center Davao.jpg
- File:Roxas Avenue.JPG
- File:PSCC Davao.jpg
- File:Downtown Davao.JPG
- File:DICT.jpg
- File:P1090160E2.jpg
- File:Wikipic2.jpg
- File:Davao City Skyline 2011.JPG
Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ymmyll
[edit]Unused personal photos. Uploader cleared his Userpage, no edits since half a year. Category should be also deleted.
Funfood ␌ 17:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Asaifm
[edit]
These were test pictures used to elaborate how files can be uploaded to wiki commons. --Asaifm (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fujimobarak (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam, no educational use. Out of projext scope.
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
استخدام خاطئ Safa rawashdeh (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
لنشره عن طريق الخطا سحابة الاعمال (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Accidental request. For sure you didn't post the MainPage or its talk page. --Achim55 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Abigor (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
??? What is the problem? --HAH (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, interesting, User:78.55.246.63 is from Hamburg, Germany, using de:Alice-DSL ?? Maybe a member of en:Federal_Office_for_the_Protection_of_the_Constitution_(Germany), Germany's domestic intelligence agency, who does not like that file on Wikipedia? This file is licensed correctly according to COM:SCOPE, its a multimedia file according to COM:SCOPE and (!!!) its for educational purpose not only in German Wikipedia, but also for usage in German Wikisource and for German Wikibooks --HAH (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The file is a en:Job_(role)#Job_opening for a job as head of a department that does the IT at that intelligency agency. It describes the precoditions for working in that job rather detailed. Its a very good base for articles about intelligence agencies. --HAH (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The file was downloaded from the official website: http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/20100610_referatsgruppenleiterin_abteilung_4.pdf --HAH (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A few days after I downloaded the file from that webserver it was deleted from the webserver. Now its not available from there anymore. --HAH (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
(See also: http://www.webcitation.org/5tYFv4d5G)
For example, its the only source that shows that the IT department of the BfV has 330 Workers. Also it shows the needed qualification to work there. And it show that these people get paid extra 196,52 Euro each month. And it shows that this IT deparment shall do a "costoptimized usage of common-of-the -shelf technology". All this information is the only source for putting this information in the German Wikipedia article. If this file is deleted, the article can not be based on any kind of relevant information. --HAH (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Technologien
- Comment: Would probably be in the scope of WikiSource, provided no copyright violation. 174.20.92.169 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- U need new arguments as that was once already an argument--Sanandros (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't have any educational value, that's why it doesn't belong to Commons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- But it's used as a source on the german WP--Sanandros (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the WP page where it's linked from? If so, that would be a reason to cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here--Sanandros (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here--Sanandros (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to the WP page where it's linked from? If so, that would be a reason to cancel the nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- But it's used as a source on the german WP--Sanandros (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't have any educational value, that's why it doesn't belong to Commons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.170.156 15:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that FOP applies for a 70+years old building? --Tone (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I find user from IP 84.61.170.156 a quite disruptive. So many deletetion requests without any elemnts to do so. --Mile (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now don't you dare disrespecting German IPs! This is none other but the banned sockpuppet Allesmuller, aka. user:Fernrohr. Now Petar step aside if you would: resistance is futile. NVO (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep street photo --Miha (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Mile and Miha.— MZaplotnik (my contribs) 16:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - photo of a street => Commons:De minimis. --Sporti (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The image presents the Nebotičnik, which is a copyrighted architectural work and may be photographed only for non-commercial purposes (see Commons:FOP#Slovenia). It was created upon the plans by Vladimir Šubic, who died in 1946. The copyright expires in 2017. In addition, there is a four-meter woman sculpture by Lojze Dolinar, who died in 1970, at its front façade.[4]. Eleassar (t/p) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Neboticnik-Ljubljana.JPG){kind=link}
Support Hmm, street objects are larger than this barely visible statue, which covers approx. 1/300 of the image. But hey, we have to respect the law, which protects the author :) Very good and precise job, Eleassar! Žiga (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need for sarcasm. This statue is just the additional reason for the nomination, and it can probably be covered under Commons:De minimis#Slovenia: "accessory works of secondary importance with regard to the actual purpose of some material object." Of primary concern is the building itself. It's not so much about respecting the law, because the file is located in the US. It's that the intent of this project is to offer free content. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The statue is not a problem -- it is barely visible even at full resolution. But, all of the buildings on the right side of the street appear to be be recent and are therefore under copyright. I don't know why I closed this the other way above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The copyright actually expires in 2055. The collaborator of the project was Marjan Mušič, who died in 1984.
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 23:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 23:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvios of images like this from the same user. Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 23:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Aleksa Lukic added {{copyvio|1=Official copyrighted logo of GTA series and upcoming game.}} but I think it looks as a {{PD-textlogo}}. Does not look more original than some of the logos at Category:Logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Notified on their talk pages:
- User:AlbertoCrakito (original uploader)
- User:Aleksa Lukic (added {{Copyvio}})
Stefan4 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: The image does not meet the threshold of originality. And also there are more images from the Grand Theft Auto series with the same template on it: {{PD-textlogo}}, like logos from GTA IV or GTA III. Wiki13 talk 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: A simple logo, equal to others of the same subject. Truu (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gta v.jpg, non transparent, kept. Zanaq (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Too complex for PD-textlogo--GrapedApe (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Question What is the country of origin here? It seems that it was made by a Scottish company and published by an American company. Keep Delete if it is American and Delete if it is British. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete - there is too much texture apart from the lettering (i.e., the ribbon around the V shows quite a bit of probable creativity if you zoom in on it, and the V has a separate texture in the foreground of it) , and it should be deleted according to the precautionary principle. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – This is not "simple text," as it shows creative use of lettering and style. Further, as mentioned by Magog the Ogre, I think the precautionary principle would apply, especially considered the uncertainty of opinion here. Senator2029║talk 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - PD-textlogo does not apply. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Its not a simple logo, Have artistic creativity and meeting original threshold..Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gta v.jpg also deleted.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the "V" part, particularly the scroll, is well above the threshold to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 00:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Are we sure this fails to meet TOO? Seems fairly complex to me, what with the several different fonts, stylised writing and non-matte background. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, via mattbuck Polarlys (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This image appears to be a copyright violation. The uploader at wikipedia only has two other images there but the Egyptian Museum of Cairo has banned photography at their building since at least mid-2005. (Only special groups such as academics are allowed to take photographs under special situations but tourists and ordinary visitors cannot taken photographs since 2005) But he claims this photo is own work. Secondly, this is not 2D art since it is a statue. So, it is 3D art. Finally, this picture does not look like its out of copyright since its not in black and white--its in colour. The resolution is also quite low at 300 X 332 pixels too which makes it suspicious. It may be safer to delete instead. Note: The uploader says he is a 'scholar' but one of his other images at wikipedia also has very low resolution...with no metadata. I really doubt it is own work sadly. Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This problem at wikipedia at the original uploader's page may be an additional argument for deletion. It looks like he/she doesn't know much about copyright law. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Following a request from User:AFBorchert, I've put some info from the deleted history of the file on enwiki on en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Generalnakhtmin.jpg. I would suggest, as I've said there, that the original uploader by contacted by email, and I've notified User:Sfan00 IMG of this discussion, as he was the one that tagged it as PD-Art. Snowolf (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks, the original uploader has been notified on his talk page at en-wp and by email. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As for the ban of photos in the museum it is not a problem. But the PD-art is not valid because it is a 3D work. Note: Uploader never added a license. The files on en-wiki was deleted because uploader did not add a license. MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Insifficient source information; when "internet" is all that's given as a source it's a safe bet that it's copyrighted. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, an uncropped version appears here with a watermark "Amol Kanat Photography". January (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete agree. complete copyright vio User:Boseritwik (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
possibly copyrighted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep A photograph of people with the musicians Jedward who also have Category:Jedward -> not out of scope.--Funfood ␌ 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination oops! :) missed that one. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted logo.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. Allan Aguilar • talk • 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Official press photo of building, no license information found. Very small. Funfood ␌ 10:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jrappy87 as Speedy (no longer want file here). Uploaded 2010 and in use at ru.wp. -- ~ Common Good (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The original of this file which might have had some privacy issues has been deleted. It would be good to hear whether there are other concerns with the file that need addressing. In principle it is a freely licensed image which is in use so deletion would not be the default setting. Watching --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed as kept. Free licensed photo, ok quality, properly categorized, and in use. No reason for deletion evident. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
it: non ci sono indicazioni di licenza nella pagina da dove è stata caricata http://www.siciliano.it/go-foto.cfm?id=1003 Threecharlie (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No permission Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, TV screenshot; nonfree logo that passes TOO enough --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
because of copyright 88.12.246.253 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reason is incomprehensible. Hystrix (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
because of copyright 88.12.246.253 00:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reason is incomprehensible. Hystrix (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
because of copyright 88.12.246.253 00:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reason is incomprehensible. Hystrix (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
because of copyright 88.12.246.253 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reason is incomprehensible. Hystrix (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
because of copyright 88.12.246.253 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reason is incomprehensible. Hystrix (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio as well. see [:File:WEB 4286550 WEB.jpg] Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Czech icehockey player Pavel Zubíček -> not out of scope.--Funfood ␌ 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- In scope indeed, Czech professional ice hockey defenceman, image is used in the English Wikipedia. The given source is a bit strange, however: it says C:\Users\Pavel\Desktop\Pavel.jpg - looks as if the uploader (his only contribution here) may be the portraited person himself. But then we still don't know who made the picture... it could be a self-portrait e.g. using a self timer. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In scope, no source. Uploader Lenklo, not Pavel. Maybe Pavel Lenklo, or Pavel Whatever. Pavel is quite a common first name. Safety says: When in doubt, delete. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of the Indian Government. Dipankan001 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep too simple to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Kept Hystrix (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
there is SVG version; file not in use 149.156.172.74 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete In this case it's safe to delete. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: –moogsi (blah) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio from here. Lower resolution on Commons. Uploaded to Commons on 15 September 2010, but the file modification date on the other site is 2 September 2010, which is earlier. Stefan4 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission, file description page states: 'Nur für Wikipedia'. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The uploader has had four of their five uploads speedy deleted as copyright violations, so I would suggest deleting this remaining one per COM:PRP. January (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected logo from http://sportingtelenet.be/ LeeGer (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyrightproblems, source CW website may be http://www.cwtv.com whhich claims copyrights LeeGer (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The artist died 1998. No permission for PD. GeorgHH • talk 13:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - promotional photo, no evidence uploader is photographer. Even if uploader is photographer, unlikely to be copyright holder of a promotional photo of a singer. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't have permission of the artist who did the original artwork. Diannaa (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
File:A Rare and Exceptional Roman Gold Aureus of Nero Claudius Drusus, Father of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 C.E.), a Superb Portrait.jpg
[edit],_a_Superb_Portrait.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_a_Superb_Portrait.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user is not the creator of this reproduction. File is from http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=3974 Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
File:A Fine Lead Seal of Simeon I Veliki (Simeon the Great), Tsar of Bulgaria (893-927 C.E.), a Testimony of the Byzantine Influence on the Bulgarian Court.jpg
[edit],_Tsar_of_Bulgaria_(893-927_C.E.),_a_Testimony_of_the_Byzantine_Influence_on_the_Bulgarian_Court.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Tsar_of_Bulgaria_(893-927_C.E.),_a_Testimony_of_the_Byzantine_Influence_on_the_Bulgarian_Court.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user is not the author but only taking files from third party sources. See http://www.flickr.com/people/antiquitiesproject/. The license on flickr is invalid, the copyright holder never agreed to the license. Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
File:A Fine Greek Bronze Double Unit of the Bretti (Bruttium), a Majestic Depiction of Ares in Bronze.jpg
[edit],_a_Majestic_Depiction_of_Ares_in_Bronze.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_a_Majestic_Depiction_of_Ares_in_Bronze.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user did not create the reproductions of coins that he is uploading to flickr. See http://www.flickr.com/people/antiquitiesproject/. The license is invalid, the true copyright holder never agreed to the license. Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Screencap of www.manager.co.th/sport which is subject to copyright Aristitleism (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Vague source information. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personality rights: individual minors can be identified, picture taken and published without parental consent. Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Personality rights: individual minors can be identified, picture taken and published without parental consent. Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not own work, http://www.anp-archief.nl/page/2125623/nl says author is Cor Out and uses CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, a non-commercial license Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo of company (apparently used in a long-deleted article). A different (and useless) image is also in the file history. Non-indicative filename. Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Flickr user Ancient Art is not uploading self-created reproductions of coins but only plagiarize from other sources. The photos and the text. In this case the file is grabbed from http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=453760&AucID=825&Lot=174&Val=4e8045ffe4fd9a75473718d22ba08a0d. We can not use this photo under cc-by on Wikimedia projects, its copyright infringement on Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Belgium, unfortunately. The sculpture seems to have been created around 1968 as that year is stated on the sculpture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an image of a copyrighted memorial. Per Commons:FOP#Slovenia, the works of authors who died in 1945 or later are copyrighted and can be photographed only for non-commercial use. The authors of this memorial are Stojan Batič (living), Ive Šubic (died in 1989), and Boris Kobe (died in 1981).[5] Eleassar (t/p) 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The nominator has a history of uploading copyright violations, and claiming works as their own -- e.g. uploading images from an event in New York they were present at from an IP in Brazil 5-6 hours later. Saying that this is found all over the net, does not satisfy me that the uploader is the author. Only due to history of copyvios is this being brought here. russavia (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I really doubt that somebody can claim owning the copyright, but at least the uploader isn't the holder since he claims that he found it somewhere on the web. mabdul 12:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I highly doubt this would be copyrighted. Infact, I have the same image in my Photobucket album. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is animated... and thus copyright-able. mabdul 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Copyrightable does not translate to copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is animated... and thus copyright-able. mabdul 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - When I uploaded this file I was both unaware of Wikipedia policies for copyrighted material and unaware that I wrote English so bad. I'm going to rewrite its description to match its actual conception. I'm also going to describe it here. I used to create emoticons in GIMP derivated from other works I found or saw on the internet to use them in internet forums, then I came along with Department of Fun (a wiki project), a project which I identify with, however (IMO) none of the userboxes presented on the project, at that point, used a icon which elucidated the project's actual scope, so I uploaded this one to fulfill this purpose. Eduemoni (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sidenote - I'm also going to upload a new version to prove my authorship over it. Eduemoni (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Kept as no valid reasons to delete in months. Re-open if you find some. Canoe1967 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Fma12 marked as a copyvio; the SVG is original and issues behind the coat of arms are complex, so I'm tending to keep Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Wheter the image is SVG or any other, this is a copyright violation so the logo is property of the Argentine Football Association (AFA). The laurel wreath sorrounding the badge makes the image complex enough to be released into the public domain. Moreover, the logo was uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image (see here).
- You uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image, completely violating the copyright of the creator of the SVG. That never should have been uploaded to Wikipedia; if you want a copy of someone's logo, taking someone else's drawing of it is not fair use. I can't find any images on the AFA logo besides [6], which is pretty small, but I believe it to be the valid redrawing of an uncopyrightable coat of arms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- How wrong you are... well, let's see: 1) I did upload the logo to Wikipedia WITHOUT violating any creation (because of that it was uploaded as a "non-free image"). In fact, I DID the SVG logo (I'm a graphic designer, for your concern... ) based in the multiple reproductions of the logo that are spread on the web. You seem to be a little confused about what copyright is. Making an exact SVG reproduction of a logo does not attribute you the copyright of that logo if it has been registered before. If you have some complaints about uploading the AFA logo to WP, leave your feedback there. I did the SVG image, I uploaded the image, but it is NOT my original creation, so I can't claim for a copyright. 2) I was born in Argentina, I'm a football fan, I really know what I'm talking about. Do you want AFA logo images? very simple... try "AFA logo" in Google, and you'll find a lot of reproductions of the logo in all type of formats and sizes. 3) you SHOULD NOT change the attribution of an image in WP before the discussion whether the logo is free or not has concluded. For example, Boca Juniors logo has not moved to Commons yet because it is not clear that it's inelegible for copyright in Argentina. The same applies for the AFA logo. So, if you continue replacing the AFA logo in WP, I'll report your disruptive editings. Last: 4) You are taking this as something personal, I don't know why but I can tell you that you have chosen the wrong opponent... Fma12 (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You still have to attribute the author where possible, even if something is being treated as fair use. It's questionable whether you can ever use a copyrighted work of someone besides the AFA to represent their logo, even as fair use. Something is copyrighted whether or not it has been registered, with the exception of US works in the US between 1923 and 1989, in some cases.
- Are you claiming that Gabryel74, aka Gabriel Temirov, is making a false claim as the creator of this SVG? His upload to Commons predates your upload to Wikipedia by a year.
- Of course Gabryel174 is making a false claim ! He just vectorized an existing logo. No matter when he uploaded the AFA svg, he is not the original author so the logo is copyrighted by Argentine Football Association, not by him. Fma12 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- If Gabriel Temirov hand-vectorized an existing logo, then he has a copyright on the vectorization. The AFA doesn't have clear title to that SVG file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Of course Gabryel174 is making a false claim ! He just vectorized an existing logo. No matter when he uploaded the AFA svg, he is not the original author so the logo is copyrighted by Argentine Football Association, not by him. Fma12 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that you were born in Argentina and are a football fan gives you no special insight to copyright.
- You've replaced a DR with a copyvio notice and labeled the work of someone who died in 1917 with a template that said that he had been dead 100 years. This isn't personal, this is just getting things correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you knew that the photographer died in 1917, you should have put this on the image information, instead of nominating the picture for deletion. Conclusion: the image is PD so the creator died before January 1962. If you like "just getting things correct", you should assume your mistake. Fma12 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know that the photographer died in 1917 until someone pointed it out. As the uploader, it was your responsiblity to get it right, not to put the false PD-old-100 tag on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you knew that the photographer died in 1917, you should have put this on the image information, instead of nominating the picture for deletion. Conclusion: the image is PD so the creator died before January 1962. If you like "just getting things correct", you should assume your mistake. Fma12 (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- "When does derivative-work copyright exist?: For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality." Taken from WP: Derivative work - Fma12 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- An SVG file is computer code. No matter what the output of computer code is, the computer code itself is copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * If all SVG are copyrightables as you state, so almost all the sports logos in WP (for example: Brazil, Netherlands or NFL among others) should be tagged as "own source" by their uploaders. As a matter of fact, the copyright of those logos have been credited to their respective clubs or teams, not to any uploader or anonymous collaborator. Fma12 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * File:CBF_logo.svg has a header at the top saying "This vector image was created by converting the Encapsulated PostScript file available at brandsoftheworld.com". So, yeah, it does credit the vectorizer. That page does give any credit for copyright to anyone; it merely passively states the image is copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * More examples: I vectorized the Club A. Palermo and Club Piraña logos before uploading them to Commons. But I did not attribute those works as "own", because I just limited to reproduce the logos exactly as they were (because I'm not their original creator, of course). Fma12 (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
- * Translators get copyrights. Photographers of 3-D art get copyrights. Complaining about incomplete attribution doesn't give you the right to strip others of their attribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I did not attribute the copyright of anything. The user who uploaded this logo wrongly attributed to himself. He did only the SVG, a vector image graphics. He is not the author of the idea, as I told you before.Fma12 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- A translator is not the author of the idea behind the book, but still gets a copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I did not attribute the copyright of anything. The user who uploaded this logo wrongly attributed to himself. He did only the SVG, a vector image graphics. He is not the author of the idea, as I told you before.Fma12 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * Translators get copyrights. Photographers of 3-D art get copyrights. Complaining about incomplete attribution doesn't give you the right to strip others of their attribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * See this WP category: Vector images of trademarks. All of them are SVG logos. Could you tell me who the copyrights are attributed to? Fma12 (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- * If all SVG are copyrightables as you state, so almost all the sports logos in WP (for example: Brazil, Netherlands or NFL among others) should be tagged as "own source" by their uploaders. As a matter of fact, the copyright of those logos have been credited to their respective clubs or teams, not to any uploader or anonymous collaborator. Fma12 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- An SVG file is computer code. No matter what the output of computer code is, the computer code itself is copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- How wrong you are... well, let's see: 1) I did upload the logo to Wikipedia WITHOUT violating any creation (because of that it was uploaded as a "non-free image"). In fact, I DID the SVG logo (I'm a graphic designer, for your concern... ) based in the multiple reproductions of the logo that are spread on the web. You seem to be a little confused about what copyright is. Making an exact SVG reproduction of a logo does not attribute you the copyright of that logo if it has been registered before. If you have some complaints about uploading the AFA logo to WP, leave your feedback there. I did the SVG image, I uploaded the image, but it is NOT my original creation, so I can't claim for a copyright. 2) I was born in Argentina, I'm a football fan, I really know what I'm talking about. Do you want AFA logo images? very simple... try "AFA logo" in Google, and you'll find a lot of reproductions of the logo in all type of formats and sizes. 3) you SHOULD NOT change the attribution of an image in WP before the discussion whether the logo is free or not has concluded. For example, Boca Juniors logo has not moved to Commons yet because it is not clear that it's inelegible for copyright in Argentina. The same applies for the AFA logo. So, if you continue replacing the AFA logo in WP, I'll report your disruptive editings. Last: 4) You are taking this as something personal, I don't know why but I can tell you that you have chosen the wrong opponent... Fma12 (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image, completely violating the copyright of the creator of the SVG. That never should have been uploaded to Wikipedia; if you want a copy of someone's logo, taking someone else's drawing of it is not fair use. I can't find any images on the AFA logo besides [6], which is pretty small, but I believe it to be the valid redrawing of an uncopyrightable coat of arms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Wheter the image is SVG or any other, this is a copyright violation so the logo is property of the Argentine Football Association (AFA). The laurel wreath sorrounding the badge makes the image complex enough to be released into the public domain. Moreover, the logo was uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image (see here).
- In any case, I'm looking at Commons:Coats_of_arms#Public_domain_definition_.28blason.29 for why we can make new drawings of this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. The AFA logo is not a coat of arms (those are national symbols). The AFA logo is an association football logo. Fma12 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- See also it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini#Stemmi comunali, provinciali e regionali italiani which contradicts with COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason). This is of course a coat of arms. Coats of arms normally identify individuals, organisations, countries, cities or other entities, and the Argentine Football Association is obviously an organisation. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Given the link to [7] (which wasn't loading a copy of the coat of arms when I checked last time), this is a separate rendition of the same coat of arms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- See also it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini#Stemmi comunali, provinciali e regionali italiani which contradicts with COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason). This is of course a coat of arms. Coats of arms normally identify individuals, organisations, countries, cities or other entities, and the Argentine Football Association is obviously an organisation. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. The AFA logo is not a coat of arms (those are national symbols). The AFA logo is an association football logo. Fma12 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is complex enough to be protected. The logo belongs to the AFA Cambalachero (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mmxx as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Screenshot of non-free content Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I assumed this to be de minimis when I uploaded it, due to the small size, angle, and lack of focus on the image. I don't mind either way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The subject is the cat. Yann (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Mangelnde Relevanz Rob77133 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Mangelnde Relevanz Rob77133 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no proper reasen for deletion given Denniss (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Taken from a forum post without any information whatsoever about date and author. Not enough information to keep this image, "c 1901" is pure speculation. Rosenzweig τ 11:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unless this comes from an artist's imagination, since she was not completed until 1903, 1901 cannot be correct. Certainly the painter could have lived past 1941. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The description does not relate to the picture. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- delete - Not educationally useful per Commons:Deletion policy. Rwendland (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful. Wizardman 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless the model maker died before 1942, this infringes his or her copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Not a question of the model maker, question of the original ship designer if a question at all. --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Although the drawings used to construct the ship have (or had) a copyright, the ship itself is a utilitarian object and never had a copyright. The model, however, is a work of art -- think of it as a sculpture -- and therefore is under copyright unless its creator died before 1942. It is well established Commons policy that models have copyrights in all of the major countries. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission, Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Was meinen Sie mit "No permission"?
- Keine Erlaubnis des Copyright-Inhabers. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Das Copyright liegt bei Katrin Schultheis und Sandra Sprinkmeier, die Erlaubnis liegt vor - wir können den Lösch-Antrag löschen
- Wir haben keine Beweise davon. Können Sie bitte Kontakt aufnehmen mit OTRS? Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- ich werde es versuchen - sieht allerdings kompliziert aus
- Das Copyright liegt bei Katrin Schultheis und Sandra Sprinkmeier, die Erlaubnis liegt vor - wir können den Lösch-Antrag löschen
- Keine Erlaubnis des Copyright-Inhabers. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete.– Simon / ?! 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Would a transwiki over to wikisource be beneficial here? Wizardman 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so, what would this add to Wikisource? Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can't think of anything, but then again I can't read the source so I don't know it's value. Wizardman 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so, what would this add to Wikisource? Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, since original uploader finds deletion to be acceptable here. Wizardman 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't have permission of the artist that did the painting. Diannaa (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Diannaa, I'm not real familiar with copyright issues, but is it different when the barn itself (not part of the artist's painting) is a relevant part of the photo? Also, is there a consideration for publicly owned and publicly displayed art, such as this one? How about when when the art itself is part of a public notification on a publicly owned building... for instance, are we not allowed to photograph the words on a post office building if our photo also includes the post office logo? Thanks! --50.35.182.196 22:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- For the instance of a painting on the side of a building, the rules at Commons:Freedom of panorama apply. For logos, a threshold of originality must be crossed before they are considered copyright; they are likely trademarked regardless. See Commons:Threshold of originality. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubts that the uploader really originally shot this photo, which looks to be some years old already. Regrettably, the uploader never replied to my question, whether he just made a reproduction of an existing photo. Anyway unused. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting case. The only other upload by this user is File:Kalhornia- colors and human mind, poster 2011.jpg, apparently a more recent image showing the same person, Bahram Kalhornia. From the English Wikipedia's article en:Visual Art High school of Kermanshah I learn that Kalhornia taught between 1985-1989 as an art teacher at this Visual Art High School. It's not impossible that the uploader was e.g. a student of Kalhornia, took the photo indeed himself as claimed, and now, after many years, had only this scratched print to scan, and that he took the photo of the older Kalhornia himself as well. So the question is: Should the default assumption for uploaders of older photographs who don't explain themselves in detail be that they have in fact scanned someone else's work? I'm not sure. Rather, I would be inclined towards deleting only if we have further indication that "Own work" is probably untrue, e.g. if a photo is obviously scanned from a magazine. "Doubts" are not quite enough, IMHO. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
,_a_Scarce_Anepigraphic_Composition.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_a_Scarce_Anepigraphic_Composition.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user is not the creator. See http://www.flickr.com/people/antiquitiesproject/, photos of coins are taken from various sources and uploader to flickr. Regretably with false license claims by the flickr user. Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There's another pict of the same coin here, on CNG site. We have a ticket for CC 3 from they. --Carlomorino (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LPLT as Speedy (deletion|Strong suspicion of copyright infringment : image from a film--LPLT (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)) FASTILY (TALK) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Needs OTRS confirmation that the uploader is the film director and copyright owner. [8] If not, delete. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Probable Possible copyvio: img_kask.jpg from http://www.visitationmonastery.org/visitation_history.html - artwork with no source, author, or evidence of permission. Copyright violation unless someone can find evidence that the art is out of copyright. Closeapple (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Flagged as copyvio for speedy deletion since webpage claims copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Changed to "possible" — it could be that this is a painting made at the time the building was still around, or otherwise out of copyright. But there is no information on when it was done or when it was first revealed to public display (which would have been enough to make it "published" under pre-1978 rules), and I can't find any other copies or information on the web. See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. --Closeapple (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Since there is a claim of copyright on the source page, I'd be inclined to treat it as a prima facie copyvio. It can always be re-uploaded or undeleted if freedom from copyright is established but for the time being if we are going to err, we should do so on the side of caution per the precautionary principle. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ship images uploaded by LittleFrog (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of several transatlantic ships grabbed from the web, originally published in France and the UK between 1912 and 1922. No information about the authors, not old enough to assume they are PD-old anyway.
- File:First Class Lounge of the RMS Berengaria.jpg
- File:The Swimming Bath of the RMS Berengaria.jpg
- File:First Class rooms on board the RMS Berengaria.jpg
- File:À La Carte Resturant aboard the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg
- File:Palm Court of the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg
- File:First Class Dining Saloon of the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg
- File:Entrance Foyer of the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg
- File:First Class Lounge of the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg
- File:The SS France (1912) as a hospital ship.jpg
- File:Tirage par l'ancienne imprimerie de la Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The Grand Staircase of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The Salon Mixte of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The Terrace Café of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The First Class Smoking Room on the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The First Class Dining Room on the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:View of the Entrance Hall of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:First Class Suite aboard the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:Fireplace of the Grand Salon of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The First Class Entrance Hall of the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:Suite de Luxe on the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:Interiors of the SS France (1912) showing the Library, Grand Salon, Mixed Salon and the Smoking Room.jpg
- File:The Mixed Salon aboard the SS France (1912).jpg
- File:The Grand Salon of the SS France (1912).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_as_a_hospital_ship.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_showing_the_Library,_Grand_Salon,_Mixed_Salon_and_the_Smoking_Room.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Alot of these are from 1912, that's a hundred years ago. It's extremely rare for copyrights to go over 75 years. Fry1989 eh? 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - these are publicity photos, the photographers' names would not have been mentioned, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thats nonsense, the photographer most likely disclose their name at least to the publisher. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} will not apply. Provide a publication/source from that time without author disclosure at least, otherwise we have no reason to talk about your argument. @Fry: Assuming an avarage lifespan of 80 years and an avarage age of 40 for the artist at the time of creation, the average duration of copyright will be 110 years. So its the opposite of what you say, its extremly rare that copyright expired 75 years from creation. Serious efforts to identify the author is required here, otherwise Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's nonsense, only public disclosure matters. The SS France images come from a company brochure from the launch in 1912]. It would not have mentioned the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - No information about author,No First publication date - All these makes this image not eligible to enter in PD--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, many of these images do have publication dates on them. But even if you didn't trust that, most of these are photographs, so their age is easily verified. Look at File:Entrance Foyer of the RMS Majestic (1914).jpg for example. That ship was scrapped in 1936. That means that the photo in question could not have been taken any later than that date. That makes it, at very minimum 76 years old. That's old enough to be public domain. Or look at File:The SS France (1912) as a hospital ship.jpg. As the ship was scrapped in '36, it couldn't have been a hospital ship in the Second World War, so it had to have been taken between 1914 and 1918. Even older. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Er no, if the publications had no information on photographers, then they were published anonymously, and {{Anonymous-EU}} or PD-EU-no_author_disclosure would apply. It does not matter if the company or publisher knows the author internally; that fact must be made generally public. If the original publications were anonymous, that's a pretty good reason to assume anonymous. The EU directives even say for countries with works for hire, the human author must be named on the first publication, otherwise the term is 70 years from publication no matter what (unlike regular anonymous works where the author can make themselves known within 70 years to get the full term). However, it's not at all true that "it's extremely rare for copyrights to go over 75 years", in fact, they usually go quite a bit longer than that. EU terms are the entire author's life then a further 70 years; most works are made more than five years prior to death. So, you do want to see some publication info to make sure that works were anonymous at first publication. The SS France photos appear to come from this page, which is the text and images from a 1912 pamphlet by Compagnie Générale Transatlantique. There is a credit to "A. PAWLOWSKI" at the bottom -- not sure if that is just the author of the text, or the pictures too. There are online credits of that pamphlet to a Auguste Pawlowski. There was a seemingly prolific author in that time frame who appears to have been born in 1874, with an unknown death date, but not sure if that is the same person. The first two RMS Berengaria photos appear to come from this page, where they are shown to be postcards by a C R Hoffmann of Southampton. FreeBMD does show a Charles Reginald Hoffmann being born there in 1879, possibly getting married in 1903 or 1908, and a Charles R Hoffmann dying there at age 73 in 1952. No idea at all if it's the same person, but that is definitely possible, in which case they should be deleted. The third one is from another postcard, copies of which are around the net, but I have not seen a backside to see if there was author info. The HMS Majestic images appear to come from this pamphlet, which apparently is undated (though likely 1922) from the New York Office of the White Star Line. That would mean it would be PD-1923, and PD-US-no_notice for sure (a valid copyright notice should have a year). I'd probably keep those, and leaning delete on the rest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's nonsense, only public disclosure matters. The SS France images come from a company brochure from the launch in 1912]. It would not have mentioned the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thats nonsense, the photographer most likely disclose their name at least to the publisher. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} will not apply. Provide a publication/source from that time without author disclosure at least, otherwise we have no reason to talk about your argument. @Fry: Assuming an avarage lifespan of 80 years and an avarage age of 40 for the artist at the time of creation, the average duration of copyright will be 110 years. So its the opposite of what you say, its extremly rare that copyright expired 75 years from creation. Serious efforts to identify the author is required here, otherwise
- Hm, there is an EBay listing for something very similar to that third RMS Berengeria card here, which shows the back -- I don't see any photographer credits. May keep as PD-UK-unknown on that one. Does say "Printed in England". Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: five, deleted the rest, per Carl. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Works by Vladimir Šubic
[edit]- File:Meksika-Ljubljana.JPG - undelete in 2017
- File:Ljubljana2 086.JPG - undelete in 2055
- File:Ljubljana2 087.JPG - undelete in 2055
- File:Neboticnik-Ljubljana.JPG - undelete in 2055
- File:Nebotičnik at sunset.jpg - undelete in 2055
- File:Nebotičnik.jpg - undelete in 2055
- File:Nebotičnik underpass.jpg - undelete in 2017
Works created by Vladimir Šubic are copyrighted in Slovenia, because he died in 1946. For authors who died in 1945 or later, freedom of panorama is limited to non-commercial use. Copyright expires in 2017, when these images may be undeleted. See Commons:FOP#Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Delete them, and then undelete them in 5 years. Žiga (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Some of those were already proposed for deletion for the same reason and were kept. Also File:Nebotičnik underpass.jpg only shows the interior.--Sporti (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've renominated these, because Commons:FOP#Slovenia was recently updated and new information regarding the copyright status is available. Vladimir Šubic died in 1946. Therefore, in accordance with Commons:FOP#Slovenia, his works are still copyrighted and may be photographed only for non-commercial purposes. The copyright expires in 2017. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose --Miha (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose -- DancingPhilosopher (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Sporti.--Retrospecter (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DR is not a vote guys FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Afghanistan coat of arm files
[edit]- File:Taliban coa.png
- File:Hizbe wahdat afghanistan.jpg
- File:DAB Logo.gif
- File:Da Afghanistan Bank Logo.svg
- File:Coat arms of Afghanistan (1980).gif
- File:Coaafghanistan.jpg
- File:ANP logo.svg
- File:Afghanistan arms 1992-1996; 2001.svg
- File:Flag of Afghanistan 1992 (variant).svg
- File:Afghanistan arms 1980-1987.svg
- File:Afghanistan arms 1987-1992.svg
- File:Afghanistan emblem color.png
- File:Afghanistan arms 1978-1980 (with background).svg
- File:Coat Arms of Democratic Republic Afghanistan (1978).png
- File:Afghanistan arms 1974-1978.svg
- File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I am not sure if these files qualify under PD-Old or PD-Ineligible which is why I decided to start this discussion. There are other files in Category:Coats of arms of Afghanistan as well.
It appears like images are derivatives of PD work File:Emblem of Afghanistan (1901-1919).svg (.svg)
). I also noticed one upload was by User:AfghanGov so maybe OTRS could be an option.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand -- Template:PD-Afghanistan hasn't been deleted, so presumably it could apply to many of these... AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Many of these arms come from an official Gazette, but how does Afghan copyright treat these works? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Licensed, nominator does not appear to doubt the license in use, bad faith DR. Fry1989 eh? 23:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find it unpleasant to be portrayed in bad faith. My nomination is in good faith. I feel the files need a review. If I was sure they were in violation of copyright I would tag them with speedy. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, it seems that no decision has yet been made to delete Template:PD-Afghanistan, which means that much of this nomination is semi-pointless at the current time... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- PD-Afghanistan means the file is PD only if it is 50 years old basically. In the past it said everything from Afghanistan was PD. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- You really should have explained that in your initial nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- PD-Afghanistan means the file is PD only if it is 50 years old basically. In the past it said everything from Afghanistan was PD. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, it seems that no decision has yet been made to delete Template:PD-Afghanistan, which means that much of this nomination is semi-pointless at the current time... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find it unpleasant to be portrayed in bad faith. My nomination is in good faith. I feel the files need a review. If I was sure they were in violation of copyright I would tag them with speedy. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand -- Template:PD-Afghanistan hasn't been deleted, so presumably it could apply to many of these... AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Based on older, public domain works. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all because they are made within the last 50 years but Keep File:DAB Logo.gif, File:Da Afghanistan Bank Logo.svg, File:Afghanistan emblem color.png, File:Coaafghanistan.jpg, File:ANP logo.svg because these were first created over 50 years ago.--Officer (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Officer: File:Afghanistan emblem color.png, File:Coaafghanistan.jpg, File:ANP logo.svg fueron creados recientemente, no hace 50 años.--201.212.125.85 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep escudos oficiales no pueden tener copyright, menos en Afganistán. KEEP: File:Afghanistan arms 1992-1996; 2001.svg, File:Flag of Afghanistan 1992 (variant).svg, File:Afghanistan arms 1980-1987.svg, File:Afghanistan arms 1987-1992.svg, File:Afghanistan arms 1974-1978.svg, File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg
--201.212.125.85 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept the five listed by Officer, becuase those were created over 50 years ago and are apparently PD under Afghan copyright law. Deleted the rest per Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)