Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/25
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
-with_Tag.png){kind=link}
,_митрополит.jpg){kind=link}
![121 File:Manifesto della Lega Nord a Trento "No Moschee in Trentino" - August 2007.jpg](#File:Manifesto_della_Lega_Nord_a_Trento_"No_Moschee_in_Trentino"_-_August_2007.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
de:Schweizer Minarettstreit. 84.61.181.19 15:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Terrible quality, no forseable educational use. ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete simply disgusting, far from educational use. Fma12 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurred Image, may be a random upload. Not useful.~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality, couldn't identify the subject. Not useful~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurred image, not useful ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurred image, not useful. ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Больше не нужен / Is no longer needed ~ Anford (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not needed now George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Больше не нужен / Is no longer needed~ Anford (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not needed now George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Used for an advertisement/promotional article on NL-wiki. Maniago (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims this to be user's own work but "10 Final Project for 2110327 Page 5" suggests its an extract. Further the is not used in any Wiki project and can probably not be used in any project. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a contents page of report/ dissertation. Doubtful if it can be of any use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal image. Trijnsteltalk 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, File:Flag of the Republic of Alsace-Lorraine.svg is better ~ Paralacre (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, incorrect George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope. copyvio ~ McZusatz (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use; out of project scope. Americophile 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope. copyvio most likely as well ~ McZusatz (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of Wiki user. Non-notable person. ~ Whaledad (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture. No usage. ~ Whaledad (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture. No usage. Obviously minor; lacking parent permission. ~ Whaledad (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal images - needs description - possibly confused with http://aaronfresh.com/photos/ Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scaled down dupe of File:Flag of Saxony.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Low resolution and lack of metadata make me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Hystrix (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Factual accuracy disputed: Stereochemstry of the OH groups at the lower left hand site are incorrect. Replaced by re-drawn version (File:Steroidsynthese Ausschnitt.svg). Leyo 09:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as incorrect ("OH" groups should be wedged not dotted, for those not seeing the specific detail that is critical here). DMacks (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Ed (Edgar181) 13:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (badJPG), replaced by File:PyroninY.svg. Leyo 09:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is an unused low quality image with a superior alternative. Ed (Edgar181) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
To be deleted, copyrighted, because of no Fop in France. Authors are Robert Wlérick (Mont-de-Marsan 1882 - Paris 1944), and Raymond Martin (Paris 1910 - Paris 1992), French sculptors. Sorry.~ Jebulon (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Probably all images in Category:Statue of Ferdinand Foch in Paris must be deleted, as well as maybe the category itself (or it could be retained with a note explaining that it can't be populated until 1/1/2063, unless there is a change in French law). cmadler (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP. I'm closing this as delete, I'll open a new DR for the files left in the category in order to notify the uploaders. PierreSelim (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in France. Building too recent to be in public domain. ~ Léna (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France PierreSelim (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The description of this portrait tells us that Austrian violinist Rudolf Deman (1880-1960) is pictured by Frida Leider in 1955 and owned by the family. Frida Leider (1888-1975) was well-known singer and Deman's wife, as being dead in 1975 she could not upload this picture. It is possible however that picture was uploaded by any family member who inherited the portrait and rights but it should be proven in a proper way. ~ Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: permission by copyright holder (artist’s relatives) and photographer (because of the frame) needed Polarlys (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks suspiciously like a publicity photo to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no source Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Self-promotion. No likely educational purpose. ~ Smalljim (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
File:CARACTERIZACION DE LA VIOLENCIA INTRAFAMILIAR EN ADOLESCENTES. ESCUELA FORMADORA DE EDUCADORAS DE CIRCULOS INFANTILES. HOLGUIN. 2009-2010. Parte 2.pdf
[edit]Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
File:CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA VIOLENCIA INTRAFAMILIAR EN ADOLESCENTES. ESCUELA FORMADORA DE EDUCADORAS DE CÍRCULOS INFANTILES. HOLGUíN. 2009-2010. Parte 1.pdf
[edit]Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Violencia Intrafamiliar. Comportamiento en adolescentes de la Escuela Formadora de Educadores de Circulos infantiles, 2009.pdf
[edit]Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Clearly posed, professional-looking photo of someone who is apparently notable. It just seems a little suspicious to me - this was the uploader's only contrib. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: most likely self-promotion, delete when article is deleted Polarlys (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. No permission, source = 'word' ?!? Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image - no description of the person or purpose Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
copyvio? ~ McZusatz (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's from here. Added {{copyvio}}. Should be deleted shortly. – JBarta (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
incorrectly mirrored (see "adidas" caption), unused. --~ Kaganer (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Flipped image. Problem solved. And "unused" isn't really a rationale for deletion. So unless I'm missing something... keep. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; this file is duplicate of File:David Marsagishvili.jpg (are marked). --Kaganer (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:David Marsagishvili.jpg. Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Syedasimalizaidi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Seems to be a personal artwork collection.
- File:Mr Sam Ali - Broken Heart Mega Album Art(HD).jpg
- File:Broken Heart Mega Art (Mr Sam Ali's First Album).jpg
- File:Broken heart.jpg
- File:Mr Sam Ali-Broken Heart.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Dominic (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful that this drawing is the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- As the sign board is not only the photographed object, can this a valid DR? --Vaikoovery (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? Please see DW and De minimis--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 10:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyrighted in country of origin (UK). ~ Cloudbound (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo is perfectly fine here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted in country of origin (UK). ~ Cloudbound (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: That's textlogo. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, there is no use of this homemade, poor quality porn Bulwersator (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and per Commons:PORN. Missvain (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep COM:NOTCENSORED - is it so hard to understand? It illustrates masturbation with an electric toothbrush - glad we have such a picture. --Saibo (Δ) 04:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- And it is useless ("eating with a toothbrush", "digging with a toothbrush" etc are also useless). There are thousands images on this topic (masturbation) better than this homemade porn Bulwersator (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC) PS "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Bulwersator (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) PPS "Remember that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the normal permitted Commons scope." Bulwersator (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Would you be so kind and provide a photo of you digging with a toothbrush? Thanks. PS: yes, you do not like it - but that is no reason to delete it. --Saibo (Δ) 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- And it is useless ("eating with a toothbrush", "digging with a toothbrush" etc are also useless). There are thousands images on this topic (masturbation) better than this homemade porn Bulwersator (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC) PS "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Bulwersator (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) PPS "Remember that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the normal permitted Commons scope." Bulwersator (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and per Commons:PORN. --JN466 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Requested undeletion: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored by Courcelles. --Saibo (Δ) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Second nomination
Since being uploaded a year ago, this image has been highly disruptive for the Commons community as a poster child for the entire "porn debate". Looking back at the previous deletion request, there was no significant consensus and the discussion was short, especially when compared to similar discussions over far less disruptive images. Everyone must know by now that I am personally committed to Commons including a full range of images to support the needs of sex education, so I am not raising this image for discussion out of distaste or as an anti-porn lobbyist. I firmly believe that this image has no realistic educational purpose that is not already addressed by better images and I honestly cannot imagine any educator or autodidact wanting to use this image for any other purpose other than titillation. Deletion of this image is not an excuse to start a sex image deletion frenzy, this particular image just sits well outside of our scope for Commons, remains incredibly disruptive and casts our entire Commons community as immature as we cannot even agree that this image is not about a toothbrush and perhaps, using a bit of common sense, having it at the top of searches for toothbrush might be a very bad thing indeed. ~ Fæ (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I would like to quote from the UDEL request:
- Image deleted without explanation, arguments for deletion were basically "out of scope, PORN". Now, I'm not arguing it's a great image, it's not, but it is one of I believe only two images we (had) of masturbation using implements which were neither vegetables nor purpose-made sex toys. This was a bad image, but people masturbate using toothbrushes sometimes - I know people who do. People sometimes do it because they don't have access to sex toys, or they just want a thrill of unintended use. Either way, this is something which happens, quite regularly, and which we now, without explanation, have no media depicting. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Support The only !votes in favour of deletion cited only COM:PORN which states "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Clearly, this image contributes something that our existing images do not. Some people (e.g. User:Bulwersator) seem to think that the idea of masturbating with a toothbrush is random and silly, but this is a relatively common practice - perhaps the most commonly used household object - and would be excellent for illustrating an educational discussion of makeshift devices for masturbation. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)- *
Done as closing admin. Dcoetzee makes an entirely valid point that was wholly lacking in the actual DR. If he makes that comment 2 hours ago and on another page, this isn't a delete, so... Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is the argument why it should be kept, in respect to its content. Now, let me state why it should be kept in respect of drama, which frankly seems to be the main thrust of this DR. As many of you will know, I am all in favour of doing things which remove drama, mainly by giving the boot to the people who create it. The thing is, removing this will not reduce drama, the "think of the children" crowd will simply fixate upon a new image; and, let's face it, there are plenty to choose from. So where would deleting this leave us? Actually in a worse position, because we will
- Have got rid of an image which is educationally distinct from our other photos
- Have shown the "think of the children" crowd that their bullying tactics work, and this will only lead to the attacks upon our media being increased.
- We should not censor ourselves on the basis that it might make our lives easier, because it won't, it will just mean we have compromised our beliefs and actually put ourselves in a worse position. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, you probably have not actually read Censorship for a while, it says: The counterpoint to this, is that the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose. So my nomination here is actually an argument to comply with our policy on not being censored and your comments about the unlikely value of this image actually support deletion. Frankly, scare tactics that this is the thin edge of the wedge, are themselves worn rather too thin when no dentistry educator can search for dental hygiene images without immediately wanting to never turn to Commons again as a source of material. I have found it impossible to even rename this image, deletion remains the best option. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reformatting my quote, it looks much better now. Anyway, as I thought my argument stated, this image is educationally distinct. The image shows someone masturbating with a toothbrush, what else should it be named? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- A new justification for deletion, offered above, says "...no dentistry educator can search for dental hygiene images without immediately wanting to never turn to Commons again as a source of material." An internal search for "toothbrush" here on commons finds about 100 images of toothbrushes -- the other 99 not having a connection to human sexuality. So, your theoretical dentistry educator would have shown such terrible judgment that I suggest we need to expend zero efforts catering to their peculiarities. In the nomination you went on record that the image should not be deleted "out of distaste", which I cannot reconcile with your suggestion above that we cater to the shock of your theoretical easily shocked dentisty educator. Geo Swan (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, you probably have not actually read Censorship for a while, it says: The counterpoint to this, is that the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose. So my nomination here is actually an argument to comply with our policy on not being censored and your comments about the unlikely value of this image actually support deletion. Frankly, scare tactics that this is the thin edge of the wedge, are themselves worn rather too thin when no dentistry educator can search for dental hygiene images without immediately wanting to never turn to Commons again as a source of material. I have found it impossible to even rename this image, deletion remains the best option. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- This nomination asserts that this image has been particularly disruptive over the years since the previous nomination -- the nomination calls the image a "poster child". However this assertion is not accompanied by a single diff of substantiation.
The nomination states "I honestly cannot imagine any educator or autodidact wanting to use this image for any other purpose other than titillation" -- I would like to say this in the nicest way possible, but why shouldn't we see this assertion as a confession of a personal failure of imagination? I accept that our nominator can't imagine a use of this image that is within scope. In turn I ask them to accept that other contributors can imagine in scope uses. Do removing pubic hair from one's organs of generation represent a health problem? This image shows organs shorn of pubic hair. Are the use of vibrating devices a safe sex technique? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not an expert but I suspect it is safe -- given certain qualifications. Maybe this image could usefully be captioned "if you are going to dental hygiene tools as sex toys you should put them in a condom to prevent the mixing of mouth and genital flora." I am not an expert, maybe the caption could say condoms aren't necessary. Either way I suggest this image is a potentially educational image. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Geo Swan, I think one would have to have missed quite a lot of the porn debate over the last six months to not notice "toothbrush" and mentions of this image being used time and again as a key illustration of the argument that Commons has lost its way. Anyway, hardly the main point for deletion, only how damaging this is for us. I agree that others may be able to fantasize better than I, hard to prove anything else. Certainly I agree that bad sex as well as good sex images are useful in education. I would love us to have the early medical X-ray of a light-bulb lost inside a woman's body after it was used as a sex toy, that would be a good illustration of dildos to avoid. This image, no, it is really scraping the exemplar barrel to justify this poorly composed image as a reason why condoms are a good idea. Many other things are lacking in this image, like knickers, a grand piano and a stuffed Muppets toy; it does not illustrate them either. By the way, I would prefer to make the nomination and not reply to every opinion, but yours was directed at the nomination and so polite, it seemed impolite not to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am unaware that commons has "lost its way". Really, has it? Where should I go to read about that?
I went through my last six months contributions. I uploaded close to 3,000 images, and participated in about two dozen deletion discussions. The following comments are from the ten discussions of images related to human sexuality I participated in: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. There is no mention of a toothbrush controversy in any of those discussions.
So, should my opinion in this discussion be discounted because I participated in only ten discussions related to human sexuality over the last six months? May I suggest instead that policy based concerns about this image should be put forward in this discussion?
I wasn't planning to make any images intended to support sex education. But, if I do so I promise I'll give a level of consideration to the suggestion such images must include a muppet, a grand piano and knickers that matches the seriousness that suggestion merits. Geo Swan (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might be confusing yourself by looking at diffs of your edits rather than the full discussions. Certainly Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg which you linked to in your own list includes this image as a key example to compare to, which rather seems to prove the point. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that in the discussions I participated in there was a single passing reference to this image. I'm sorry but I can't agree that this supports your assertion that the commons has "lost its way". If you meant to suggest my opinion should be discounted because I didn't participate in as many sexuality related discussions as you have. No offense but I continue to think those who assert this image has been posing a problem in other discussions have an obligation to actually articulate those problems here. It seems to me no one has done so yet. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, "lost its way" doesn't really mean much, I regret saying it. By the way, I do a lot of things on Commons, it is unfortunate that some think that I seek out sexual discussion when it is closer to the truth that I don't avoid them as a way of helping us get on with suitable cases that might improve policy one way or the other. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that in the discussions I participated in there was a single passing reference to this image. I'm sorry but I can't agree that this supports your assertion that the commons has "lost its way". If you meant to suggest my opinion should be discounted because I didn't participate in as many sexuality related discussions as you have. No offense but I continue to think those who assert this image has been posing a problem in other discussions have an obligation to actually articulate those problems here. It seems to me no one has done so yet. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might be confusing yourself by looking at diffs of your edits rather than the full discussions. Certainly Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg which you linked to in your own list includes this image as a key example to compare to, which rather seems to prove the point. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am unaware that commons has "lost its way". Really, has it? Where should I go to read about that?
- Geo Swan, I think one would have to have missed quite a lot of the porn debate over the last six months to not notice "toothbrush" and mentions of this image being used time and again as a key illustration of the argument that Commons has lost its way. Anyway, hardly the main point for deletion, only how damaging this is for us. I agree that others may be able to fantasize better than I, hard to prove anything else. Certainly I agree that bad sex as well as good sex images are useful in education. I would love us to have the early medical X-ray of a light-bulb lost inside a woman's body after it was used as a sex toy, that would be a good illustration of dildos to avoid. This image, no, it is really scraping the exemplar barrel to justify this poorly composed image as a reason why condoms are a good idea. Many other things are lacking in this image, like knickers, a grand piano and a stuffed Muppets toy; it does not illustrate them either. By the way, I would prefer to make the nomination and not reply to every opinion, but yours was directed at the nomination and so polite, it seemed impolite not to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I hope that Niabot's cluster search proposal will be implemented soon, to mitigate the search problems this image has become emblematic of. --JN466 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful educational image helpfully illustrating usage of tool for purpose of female self pleasure. Unique as such, and retains value for such rationale. -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It feels weird to say this, but I agree with everything Fae said. It falls out of the scope of Commons. It doesn't have educational value, and the suggested in-scope uses of the image would be taken (literally) as jokes anywhere but the twilight zone that is commons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't actually explained your position. You have merely tossed some vague mockery at the position you are opposed to. The rest of us have to draw on our ability to assume good faith to assume you actually have a reason for your opposition. Denying readers information useful for practicing safe sex is not a laughing matter, thank you. If you think you have a coherent reason to oppose using this image to explain why this practice is unsafe could you please offer it here in a straightforward manner that eschews mockery? Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fæ. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- (from first deletion request) - "Out of scope, there is no use of this homemade, poor quality porn" + it is not necessary to have images of everything Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Question I believe that the use of electric toothbrushes as a masturbatory aid is not uncommon. At least, a Google image search for "toothbrush masturbation" brings up many examples of both men and women masturbating with electric toothbrushes. On the other hand, an image search for "'tolling the bells' masturbation" brings up no images which appear related. The same search without the quotes brings up only a single image which would appear to be directly and it is from Commons. File:Masturbation Techniques - swinging cock (animated).gif is an animated gif showing the rear view of a man vigorously swinging his erect penis back and forth towards the viewer in an endless loop. Fæ, you voted to keep that particular image, even as you commented on the veracity of the description "tolling the bells" as a masturbation technique. If that image is "in scope", why is this image not "in scope"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- Keep It is in scope, as per mattbuck. Handcuffed (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Not educational, so out of scope. Any dentist will confirm this is not the appropriate way to use a toothbrush. Ices2Csharp (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Says who? So what? In looking into this for this discussion I found this usage of electric toothbrushes is extremely common. One vibrator company even brought out a new model of vibrator inspired by the popularity of the use of a new model of electric toothbrush as a sex toy. That new model of electric toothbrush used a different technology providing vibrations that were at a significantly higher frequency than both competitor's toothbrushes, and by sex toys. So, whether dentists recommend this usage is irrelevant. The clear fact remains it is a popular usage. Geo Swan (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in reading a source for that, or even better some photos of such a toothbrush inspired sex toy for Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Really? The Seattle Times article is the very first google hit for toothbrush "sex toy". Geo Swan (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- A sex toy inspired by the Sonicare toothbrush, Seattle Times
- The hot new sex toy set to transform the market... that was inspired by an electric toothbrush
- The vibrator of the future: Revel Body uses sonic tech to power new sex toy line
- Snooki's Sex Toy: I'll Tell My Dad It's a Toothbrush!
- For your additional reading pleasure: Vibrator sex toy conversion
- I saw a clip which used what certainly looked like a toothbrush as a sex toy the other day. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, these are potentially useful for improving Sex toy or similar, particularly if photos of the gadgets are on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- From a review of the recent film: Hysteria: Thanks to the 1953 Kinsey Reports, the sex therapy profession gained steam in the late 1950s and, according to Dr. Maines, a sex therapist devised a new way to gain results in his inorgastic patients. “He discovered his patients were getting great results with vibrating electric toothbrushes and published those results,” says Dr. Maines. “Of course, sales of electric toothbrushes seem to have increased." Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in reading a source for that, or even better some photos of such a toothbrush inspired sex toy for Commons. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Says who? So what? In looking into this for this discussion I found this usage of electric toothbrushes is extremely common. One vibrator company even brought out a new model of vibrator inspired by the popularity of the use of a new model of electric toothbrush as a sex toy. That new model of electric toothbrush used a different technology providing vibrations that were at a significantly higher frequency than both competitor's toothbrushes, and by sex toys. So, whether dentists recommend this usage is irrelevant. The clear fact remains it is a popular usage. Geo Swan (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This file is little more than low quality porn. It is not actively used it illustrate anything and the theoretical use is questionable at best. The censored versions are beyond useless. I suggest that this image and it's a, b, c, and d dirivites are deleted. not censored is not a route around common sense. --Guerillero 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is now used on Pervertible, meaning it is in scope. Handcuffed (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more precisely, you have added "electric toothbrush" to a long unsourced list of items and then added the image illustrating the use of a electric tootbrush for masturbation (even though the article seems to be about objects used by one person on another). Good work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- DC is 100% correct here. I removed the image as having nothing to do with the article in question --Guerillero 04:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more precisely, you have added "electric toothbrush" to a long unsourced list of items and then added the image illustrating the use of a electric tootbrush for masturbation (even though the article seems to be about objects used by one person on another). Good work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=67077171){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=66856524){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rick_santorum_caricature_satire_made_with_frothy_santorum_pic_1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=66855519){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rubberdoll_at_Exxxotica_Miami_2010_(2).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=67836875){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64069805){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sodomie.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=64062991){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jilly%27s,_a_bar_that_has_been_advertizing_exotic_dancers_for_at_least_four_decades,_on_Queen_Street_and_Broadview_Avenue_-b.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal_3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=61603521){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sodomie.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=61603795){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
- in scope?
Several contributors who favor deletion of this image have asserted, as if it was obvious, and required no explanation, that this image was out of scope as they could not imagine a possible edcuation use for it.
I suggested these assertions reflected a failure of imagination.
This image shows an unsafe sex practice and the use of this image to warn against this unsafe practice would unquestionably be an "educational use" and would unquestionably put the image in scope.
Sex toys should not be shared between different individuals -- unless they are sterilized between uses, or the users place a new condom over them between uses.
Similarly, when a single individual uses a sex toy in both the vagina and anus, vagina and mouth, or anus and mouth, they risk health problems. Our bodies are covered with flora -- bacteria and fungi and other organisms -- that don't cause disease, that are considered benign, due to their long adaptation to humans, and due to human long adaptation to them. Humans who get their usual flora wiped out face problems because our usual flora help prevent infection from unfriendly flora.
Similarly the flora that don't cause us problems when they are where they belong, in one orifice, can cause problems in another orifice.
In addition, some sexually transmitted infections are localized, to one part of our body, and won't be found in the infected individual's other orifices -- unless the infected individual unknowingly infects the other orifices by using a sex toy in multiple orifices.
For these reasons sex toys should not normally be used in both the vagina and anus, or vagina and mouth, or anus and mouth, of even a single individuals -- at least not without being sterilized between uses or not without being shrouded with a condom.
I prepared two derivative images of this image File:Masturbating with a toothbrush -b.jpg and File:Masturbating with a toothbrush -c.jpg. Over on Talk:Safe sex I requested opinions as to whether those maintaining that article felt one of these three images was appropriate to illustrate the problem of unsafe use of sex toys.
This image is superior to images of other sex toys, for illustrating this problem, as a toothbrush's primary purpose is oral hygiene. Use of a toothbrush for clitoral or vaginal stimulation, without a condom, is not a safe sex practice, as it is likely the toothbrush is also being used for routine oral hygiene. Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase we probably disagree on in scope is the interpretation of "realistically useful". If you could point to somewhere where over the last 12 months this image has been used for a positive educational purpose as opposed to just internal disputes, this would be helpful. By the way, en:Talk:Safe_sex has been inactive for more than 12 months, so probably not the best place to promote the use of this image
to by-pass this deletion request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- With regard to "realistically useful" -- you went on record that your concerns are not based on an anti-sexuality agenda. You wrote "I am not raising this image for discussion out of distaste or as an anti-porn lobbyist." So, if I understand you, if the image is genuinely in use then all your initial concerns would have been addressed, correct?
- Yes, I'm in support of media with a realistic sex education purpose. If you can show that here, then I have no problem. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your reference to the last 12 months confuses me. Why the last 12 months? FWIW, I thought I had already established an educational use of this image.
- 12 months is how long it has been resting here. You certainly established your imagination, not quite the same thing as finding a realistic educational use. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to "by-pass[ing] this deletion request" -- I honestly believe the image is in scope because I honestly believe it should be used to explain why the technique it displays in an unsafe practice to avoid. I thought suggesting, here, the use of this image, or a derivative image, belonged in the Safe sex article was a completely legitimate thing for me to do, to address your stated "out of scope" concern. I also thought seeking input on Talk:Safe sex about the use of this image, or a derivative image, on Safe sex was a completely legitimate thing for me to do. Perhaps I am mistaken, and there is some policy or convention I am unaware of, or I am overlooking? Please, if you think that is the case, can you help me out by directing that policy or convention to my attention? Geo Swan (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just pointed out how inactive that article was, though I admit, squeezing the image into use on a Wikipedia article talk page seems a bit thin as evidence of use and could easily be confused by others as an attempt to by-pass this discussion. Struck my wording on this above as it did appear as an unfair allegation. If only Wikipedia had an article related to the educational topic of masturbation and toothbrushes, that would be a real win all round. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fæ, the question regarding scope in the section above is directed at you, if that wasn't clear. An answer would be appreciated. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to "realistically useful" -- you went on record that your concerns are not based on an anti-sexuality agenda. You wrote "I am not raising this image for discussion out of distaste or as an anti-porn lobbyist." So, if I understand you, if the image is genuinely in use then all your initial concerns would have been addressed, correct?
- Keep Here we go again. This is precisely the sort of image that gets argued about by editors of sex education articles. That's not disruptive, that's what it's there for. We are supposed to provide a range of illustrative material for editors so they can make choices. Various projects may make different decisions about what is appropriate, it's not for us to preempt them by removing material. My personal preference in these debates is usually for drawings and artwork, but these seem particular targets of the we're-not-censors-it's-out-of-scope brigade. And it seems if an image doesn't get deleted one time it can be re-nominated until it does. --Simonxag (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
In determining whether to keep or delete an image, we need to take into account those policies which control our content. We can appreciate the sentiment, and reasoning, behind Fae's nomination of this image, and the opinions of those participating in this discussion. Moreso because, as stated, it has caused some controversy in the English Wikipedia community, and by extension here on Commons.
After reading the arguments presented, as admins we need to weigh the strength of those arguments and put them in context of our content policies and guidelines.In relation to this DR, the relevant policies and guidelines are COM:SCOPE and COM:NUDITY
In relation to our nudity guidelines, this image is unique enough in that it is one of few images showing female masturbation without the use of sex toys or vegetables. Put in the context of our project scope, the arguments presented in favour of keeping the image outweigh the arguments of those favouring deletion. The keep arguments, such as that presented by Geo Swan, give potential scope for this images' use on our various projects; whilst the deletion arguments do not give convincing arguments for the images deletion based upon our scope policy.
On this basis, we are keeping the initially nominated image, and deleting the 3 derivative works.
In further comment, it has been mentioned in this discussion that the nominated image is the "poster child" of what is wrong with Commons. We agree that there is a problem when a search for toothbrush on Commons returns this image on top of the results. If one peruses the various threads on Jimmy Wales' English Wikipedia talk page, you will see that the common theme is that search results of this type are an indication of Commons being broken, often with individual members of the Commons community being singled out as the problem itself. This is an unfair assault on our individual editors and Commons as a collective, for we are only as good as the infrastructure we are provided with.
To this end, we encourage members of all projects to lobby the WMF to make changes so that search problems such as this can be rectified in the future. We also urge the WMF to engage proactively with the community on these issues, and consider solutions such as Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence.
Jointly closed by:
Does not consist solely of text. Not ineligible for copyright protection. ~ —LX (talk, contribs) 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Google permissions, "you don’t need our permission when you want to use a standard, unaltered Google screenshot (an image of our homepage or search results page) in either print (book, magazine, journal, newspaper) or digital (web page, DVD, CD) formats for an instructive or illustrative purpose". Brandmeister (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Licensing. Commons requires content that can be used with modifications and for any purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Screenshots are not allowed.
- PD-ineligible is iffy. Add that it's a screenshot and IMO it's not ineligible.
- Google permissions is useless to Commons for the reasons mentioned above.
- Therefore - delete – JBarta (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-ineligible. The google permission is not useful for us (COM:L intro). Saibo (Δ∇) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Does not consist solely of text. Not ineligible for copyright protection. ~ —LX (talk, contribs) 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Google permissions, "you don’t need our permission when you want to use a standard, unaltered Google screenshot (an image of our homepage or search results page) in either print (book, magazine, journal, newspaper) or digital (web page, DVD, CD) formats for an instructive or illustrative purpose". Brandmeister (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Licensing. Commons requires content that can be used with modifications and for any purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Screenshots are not allowed.
- PD-ineligible is iffy. Add that it's a screenshot and IMO it's not ineligible.
- Google permissions is useless to Commons for the reasons mentioned above.
- Therefore - delete – JBarta (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-ineligible. The google permission is not useful for us (COM:L intro). Saibo (Δ∇) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. ~ Vantey (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
source link (more specific one is here has an icon for the CC-BY license, but the actual text says "no derivatives" - not a compatible license Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work.~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work, not de-minimis ~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
The extreme large watermark on the image makes the image useless for further use. ~ Wouter (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A screenshot from a television show. A similar image was uploaded to ro.wp and was deleted, because the recording in question is not free.~ —Andrei S. Talk 06:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I could not find any free license at www.emap.no --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure if {{PD-GermanGov}} really is applicable here. Leyo 08:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure if {{PD-GermanGov}} really is applicable here. Leyo 08:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Carte postale scannee, recente, probablement des annees 50-60 (Citroen 2CV et autres automobiles de cette epoque visibles sur la photo) ~ 195.169.141.54 10:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. Image from the 50s. 195.169.141.54 10:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Fantasy licensing. The uploader has no author rights. 195.169.141.54 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
1935 postcard 195.169.141.54 10:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Creating new file Justpoetry (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted content. ~ Fernando (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unwanted file Zhikode (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
-with_Tag.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-with_Tag.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unwanted file Zhikode (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-with_Tag.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
-with_Tag.png){kind=link}
Poor quality, File:Flag of the Republic of Alsace-Lorraine.svg is better ~ Paralacre (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
low resolution, copyvio? ~ McZusatz (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Haunted House. jpg.jpg~ McZusatz (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other photos by 45 регион (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions/inconsistent, missing EXIF. Some may be found on other sites. ~ EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Reopened. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated: see COM:FOP Italy for full information. Architect Cesar Pelli died in 2019, still within 70 years of his posthumous copyright. See also the latest successful DR on an Italian architectural work by dead architects, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tomba Brion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is covered by "Freedom of Panorama", is it? It's an information board at a public site. DS (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think freedom of panorama applies here either - this is a closeup of a signboard at a public site, and it's complex enough to meet the threshold of originality. DS (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - this is not what freedom of panorama is about, and this is creative enough to pass the threshold of originality DS (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
cpv; Copyright © 2011 • All Rights Reserved • Ultimate Ciara ~ Svajcr (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
wrong license ~ McZusatz (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio? Sourced to "Luis Oliveira" here. Higher resolution, later date. Stefan4 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
,_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Qestionable license and the OTRS tag was added by uploader - he is not a OTRS member. GeorgHH • talk 20:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
,_митрополит.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
,_митрополит.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio, already published 2004. http://www.antithesi.info/testi/testo_2.asp?ID=321 ELEKHHT 21:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not covered by Freedom of Panorama, creative enough to pass the threshold of originality, etc DS (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This user has uploaded a series of images from the 2011 Pan American Games for which they had no copyright authority. Indicates that this image is also non-free Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Bhoja-air-AP-BKC-Plane-Crashed-In-Islamabad-File-Photo- Standing At JIAP Karachi February 2012.jpg
[edit]
Google show the image was on Flikr as http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7179/6886050741_18de1bf05f_c.jpg (since removed) no evidence that this is the work of the uploader, no metadata no comparable uploads, really need more evidence to show ownership MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio. derivative work of a poster that is in itself a collage of several copyrighted photos. ~ h-stt !? 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably just another non-free Internet image based on the low resolution, the fact that it's the uploader's only contribution, and the fact that it was posted at http://expedienteoculto.blogspot.se/2007/05/la-casa-matusita-mito-o-verdad.html more than three years before it was uploaded here under the same rather unlikely file name. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor Quality, dark, difficult to identify the subject. No use~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is a transparent jelly fish this is the way it is kept in the aqarium in complete darkness, so as it can be seen by the light blue florescent light it emits. i think its a good picture in this category. Irvin calicut (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - uploader should improve the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Too dark to have any realistic use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Seems to be random upload, blurred and out of scope~ Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Support Yes it is Out of scope --Vaikoovery (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyright violation, image taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/usmanhayat/6938784296/ ~ WWGB (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also reported as copyright violation by copyright owner at OTRS 2012052710007241 Ronhjones (Talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Belle shot.jpg at enwiki is fair use. A major part of this file is of the proprietary software so perhaps this is a copyvio? I'm not 100% sure if it is free or not. ~ Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Info:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nokia N8 with Nokia Belle.jpg is similar.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)- Delete a picture of a phone because of a copyvio against the software running on it? Really? --UKER (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thats why we don't have (or shouldn't) any pictures of iphone/ipods running iOS with the operating system screens visible. The icons are copyrighted is the reasoning behind that. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, delete from commons, possibly fair-use on wikipedia--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thats why we don't have (or shouldn't) any pictures of iphone/ipods running iOS with the operating system screens visible. The icons are copyrighted is the reasoning behind that. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Symbian^3/Anna/Belle are governed by en:Eclipse Public License, and then since 31.03.2011 by Nokia Symbian License 1.0. Portion of the license:
- Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Nokia hereby grants to You a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable (except as set forth in Clause 7.1 and 7.2 below), royalty-free and worldwide license under Copyrights licensable by Nokia to: i) reproduce and modify Source Code Components; ii) reproduce Binary Components and Documentation; iii) use and reproduce Utility Software, and iv) publicly display, distribute and make available (a) the Source Code Components to third parties that have acquired a valid source code license from Nokia; and (b) Utility Software, Binary Components and Source Code Components in binary form to third parties, (c) Documentation in unmodified form in all cases i)-iv) solely as part of the Symbian Platform or for use with the Symbian Platform, under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
- So as I understand it, it's basically an open source license (ok, I am not a lawyer), but not a free software license, and the en:Symbian article infobox lists the OS as proprietary (which the previous versions, still maintained, AFAIK, most likely are). Older deletions of files showing Anna and Belle have contended that the Symbian OS UI is "copyrighted by Nokia and others," and a "derivative of non-free content" (redlinks lead to file deletion notes). -Mardus (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a derivative of [12] -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
![[12]](http://quages.com/images/6286-1.jpg){kind=link}
- See the disscution at ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Chestii dubioase cu țigani, where the community says that it isn't a derivate of that image. See also ro:File:Guta guta.jpg.Ionutzmovie (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly derivative . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
license (PD-ineligible) is wrong, it's a map with original authorship; see text under the map: road map prepared by San Miguel Corporation -> very probably a copyvio. ~ NNW (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this was copied from the Manila Bulletin. I recognize the caption's font anywhere. It's the one used in the Manila Bulletin. User:Image2012 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - PD tag is misused. Without permission we must assume it is probably copyrighted. – JBarta (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I Bezeh.nl (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Give it a wrong name Bezeh.nl (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Use
{{rename|THE NEW NAME OF FILE|REASON}}and in that way it could be renamed. See also Commons:File renaming. Tm (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is being requested for deletion by the photographer via OTRS #This is being requested to be deleted by the photographer via OTRS #2012042010009665 ~ Sarah (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Going back into the deleted revisions of en:File:McMoab.JPG, it was uploaded and multi-licensed as {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} by en:User:Mckroes. I have no reason to think that it isn't the photographer's en.wiki account, because there is a link on their userpage to the photographer's Flickr account, also named Mckroes. Therefore it would appear that the photographer did in fact license the photo freely, and as free licenses are irrevocable, they can't go back and rescind a past permission. Certainly, they can stop offering the image freely going forward, but they can't withdraw permission for past free licensings. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There does not appear to be any such ticket or any ticket covering a message containing the word "Moab" that could apply to this image. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
this is NOT a recent building, but a tower of the '50!! are you ok? --Morgoth92 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The architect should be dead at least 70 years ago.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As noted -- copyright in Italy lasts 70 years after the death of the architect -- so a 1950s building cannot possibly be free. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France~ Vera (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- pls see comment here.Basicdesign (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As is note there, this infringes on the copyright of the text. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing copyrighted there. it is just a garden with plants. no unique animals or images. not derivative work of Disney. Deror avi (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, not copyrighted. Wizardman 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing copyrighted there. it is just a garden with plants. no unique animals or images. not derivative work of Disney. Deror avi (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Copyright Basics, from the USCO, page 3,
- "These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”;...”
- If a computer program is a literary work, then topiary is plainly sculpture and has a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not every topiary of an animal is protected by Disney - just unique images. Deror avi (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright law does not require that the created work be unique, just that it cannot be a deliberate copy of another work. It is widely not understood that if you and I independently create a work that is very similar or even the same, they can both have copyrights. The best case on the subject (or rather lack of case) is Phoenix Technologies and their not infringing duplicate of the IBM PC BIOS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not every topiary of an animal is protected by Disney - just unique images. Deror avi (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- See Copyright Basics, from the USCO, page 3,
- Keep, not copyrighted. Wizardman 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work of Disney's copyright and therefore cannot be hosted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is a shrub! It is a moose! Neither bushes nor animals can be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - not protected. Deror avi (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, not copyrighted. Wizardman 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Was used for promo article on the Dutch Wikipedia. - Maniago (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Declared as own work (could be), but with using a televison program logo via (example) http://novotempo.com/estaescrito/category/esta-escrito-adoracao-2/#. Unsure about COM:TO and eventually COM:DM. Gunnex (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
OBJECTION
- Google Translator
The image was developed by me. But really, the logo of the program is, after all would be pointless to create a cover with another logo that is not the program. The GNU license allows this type of use / reuse, and the CC. The example of this, we can mention the wide variety of icons (images) that contains logo brands and products, which in entato were developed by third parties and still are licensed as GPL, LGPL, and CC.
- http://icongal.com/gallery/icon/32398/128/pdf_file_adobe.
- http://icongal.com/gallery/icon/96235/128/adobe_photoshop
In addition, brand logo, should rightfully be associated with its developer and content. So, I might mention microsoft, and use your logo, since its use estivese tied to its end. As an example we can cite the e-commerces, using logos, trademarks and images (without a license), but the laws do not hurt, because these brand images are developed for this purpose of disclosure and identification. We can of course distort, alter, or use it differently than intended purpose by the company.
>>>The logo presented >> in this image is not patented or registered, note the absence of common tags Copyrigut (C), and Registered (R) and others directly on the site owner, and compare with the images of microsoft, apple, IBM, ASUS, which are always followed by their tags.
- Original Language (PT-BR)
A Imagem foi desenvolvida por mim. Mas realmente, o logotipo é do programa, afinal seria inútil criar uma capa com outro logotipo que não o do programa. A licença GNU permite este tipo de utilização/reutilização, bem como a CC. A exemplo disto, podemos citar a grande variedade de ícones (imagens) que contem logotipo de marcas e produtos, que no entato foram desenvolvidos por terceiros e ainda assim são licenciados como GPL, LGPL, e CC. Ex:
- http://icongal.com/gallery/icon/32398/128/pdf_file_adobe.
- http://icongal.com/gallery/icon/96235/128/adobe_photoshop
Além disso, logotipo de marca, devem por direito estar associados ao seu desenvolvedor e conteúdo. Assim, eu poderia mencionar a microsoft, e utilizar seu logo, desde que sua utilização estivese atrelado ao seu fim. Como exemplo podemos citar os e-commerces, que utilizam logotipos, marcas e imagens (sem obtenção de licença), mas não ferem a legislação, pois estas imagens de marcas são desenvolvidas para este fim de divulgação e identificação. Não podemos é claro deturpar, alterar, ou utilizar-lo de maneira diferente do fim previsto pela empresa.
>>> O Logotipo apresentado nesta imagem não é patenteado ou registrado, observe pela ausencia das tags comuns de Copyrigut (C), e Registrado (R) e outros, diretamente no site do proprietário, e compare com as imagens da microsoft, da apple, da IBM, da ASUS, que sempre são seguidas das respectivas tags.
-- JEAN CARLO Seteselos::DISCUSSÃO 22:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
