Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/28
 |
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}
This is a crop of a Getty Images photo, and is obviously copyrighted: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gerald-green-of-the-new-jersey-nets-attempts-a-shot-against-news-photo/143110495 Zagalejo (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio, same like all other "contributions" from this user in the past. Martin H. (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Spam. Yann (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedie as clear spam. Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower and Pont Alexandre III at night.jpg, but here it cannot be referred (imo) to as a panorama, and I'm not sure it's also de minimis. I think it should be discussed. Tomer T (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- After looking at some similar cases, I don't think it should be deleted. Tomer T (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
109.223.9.129 22:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)erreure de frappe débute dans l'informatique et ne sais pas coment faire pour annuler cet photos ne veut pas d'elle sur mon ordinateur 109.223.9.129 22:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – "I don't want these photos on my computer" is not a valid reason to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
ce fichier doit étre suprimé car il y a eu une erreure de frappe et je ne sais pas coment faire pour le suprimer merci de votre aide 109.223.9.129 22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – "this file should be deleted because there was a mistake and I do not know how to simply remove comment" Unclear reason. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion has been stated. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Likely flickr copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution, no EXIF, likely taken from [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Likely flickr copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution, no EXIF, likely taken from [2] or [3]. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
SVG is empty. Perhelion (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom; orphan uncategorized since Jan 2011 with no evident in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
copy vio or band spam Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not educational George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also blurry Infrogmation (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, spam Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope. i know, it is used on enwiki, uploader has one edit: sandbox subpage with band spam. no educational value and out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
probably copy vio, out of scope due to lack of description Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, probably copy vio Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, quality is so bad, no educational value Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment low res photo of man playing trumpet lacking any info to identify musician, place, context. Commons has many better photos of people playing trumpet. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Strange personal diagram. Not used anywhere. Hugo.arg (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 15:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This pic is too small to be of any use. description party is hardly visible. source is ill defined. Author is defiend as "who else" (?) Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear; copyvio possible. Hystrix (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong file 117.204.37.109 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
wrong photo this is 117.204.44.188 04:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: likes a copyvio Ezarateesteban 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
In the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg there was a general request by the photographer for all images uploaded from the Flickr account "dianaoftripoli" to be removed from Commons. In the case of the Tasting a condom image there was concern about the subject of the image being connected with the photographer's personal life as the source Flickr stream explains that all photographs are a document of their personal life. Consequently we can interpret COM:IDENT applying here not just to the models but the same principle applying to the identity of the photographer, potentially without regard to specific content of the image. The relevant images are:
- File:Glass Sex Toy.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (no person is in this image)
- File:Lesbic use of nipple clamps and strap-on dildo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (includes body and partial face image)
- File:Nipple Clamps.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (nipple close up)
- File:Fake sacrifice.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (graphic violent and nude image of identifiable person)
- File:Nipple Clamps in Use.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (derivative of file #2)
There is a good case against IDENT for all these images to be deleted along with interpretation using wmf:Resolution:Images of identifiable people, so even if this is a form of "license remorse" we can still have compassion for the views of the photographer and any people involved in the creation of the sexual images. In the case of file #2 and #4 the models are potentially identifiable, though there have not been complaints from the models themselves as far as I am aware. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete We must not host images taken in private situations without subject consent; and where subject consent has not only been emphatically withdrawn, but the Flickr account holder has bitterly complained of our violating their privacy ([4]), we should remove promptly. --JN466 12:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATasting_a_condom.jpg&diff=67108318&oldid=66957446){kind=link}
Keep Except for File:Fake sacrifice.jpg people are not recognizable so the DR is irrelevant for them. As for the "Fake sacrifice" one, I just don't know what to think but maybe we should delete it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The comment by the Flickr account owner explains that both her privacy and that of subjects are compromised by the link to her account. We should have consent from them, and don't. --JN466 02:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- That link doesn't say who could be portrayed in those files (except the "fake sacrifice" one - and maybe the "lesbic use etc" one, which can be discussed). But overall it's still hypocrit to claim privacy when the files have first been published publicly by this same person ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Having images on the 18+ section of Flickr is very different from having them on Wikimedia Commons. We are supposed to obtain consent before uploading images taken in a private setting to Wikimedia Commons. We didn't. The Flickr account holder is identifiable through the source link, and she tells us both that her subjects are identifiable through her account, and that there is no consent for us to have these images. --JN466 01:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- That link doesn't say who could be portrayed in those files (except the "fake sacrifice" one - and maybe the "lesbic use etc" one, which can be discussed). But overall it's still hypocrit to claim privacy when the files have first been published publicly by this same person ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The comment by the Flickr account owner explains that both her privacy and that of subjects are compromised by the link to her account. We should have consent from them, and don't. --JN466 02:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: To make this short and sweet. These photos are being kept based upon the reasoning of TwoWings, and going along with TwoWings, the "Fake Sacrifice" photo is being deleted, as it is clearly a COM:IDENT issue, as well as being of dubious scope. russavia (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No se usa en ninguna página y es demasiado pornografica como para que la vean los menores de edad 189.141.142.139 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Translates as "Not used on any page and it's too pornographic to be seen by minors." - I would support deletion on Photographs of identifiable people grounds, however not being in use or being too pornographic are not reasons for the image to be out of scope. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous listings; proposed for deletion and kept twice before. Wikimedia Commons no está censurada. Foto mantenido por discusiones anteriores. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete on "Photographs of identifiable people grounds". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept on the basis that this was speedy kept ONLY FIVE HOURS AGO. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reopened by Delicious carbuncle - The deletion rationale is entirely different and Fæ noted that he would support this deletion rationale so this is not a speedy keep candidate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The people are not identifiable. Their faces are not visible - even their family would not recognise them from this photo. The source image on Flickr has been removed, so it offers no hints as to their identity either (I don't see anything on the Flickr account identifying these specific models). One could argue that the people may be identifiable from scars and tattoos, but regardless there's no reason to believe this was taken in a place where they would have an expectation of privacy - they were mostly likely participating in a professional photo shoot with the knowledge that the photos would be made widely available. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point entirely. This image was uploaded to Commons by User:TwoWings (a cropped version was later uploaded by the prolific porn uploader User:Max Rebo Band, although the log has been altered by persons unknown to remove their name). The photographer has stated here that they do not want the images on Commons and consider the "posting of my photography and commentary are in violation of my private life and those who are in the photographs". That seems like a clear appeal to COM:IDENT. The photographer obviously did not realize that their choice of license on Flickr would allow someone to post an age-restricted Flickr image to Commons where anyone could see it, reuse it, and follow the link to their Flickr account and real life identity. It is not necessary for the faces of the models to be clearly in view for there to be identity concerns. We don't need this image. It is not in use on any project. Why would we keep this against the wishes of the creator of the image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I participated in that discussion. That comment was regarding that particular image, and the deletion discussion that arose out of it. I would avoid generalising it to all their images. Simply put, I think this image has an educational purpose and cannot plausibly harm the photographer or subjects in any way. However, I'd be happy to delete it if a higher-quality substitute for the depicted topics were made available. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The comment was clearly in regard to all images (note the use of the plural "photographs" and the part that asks "REMOVE this photo from this site and all others that I have taken"). We have many images of nipple clamps and many images of strap-on dildos - are you suggesting that it is difficult for people to imagine the two together? Is this worth ignoring the wishes of the person who took the photograph? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I participated in that discussion. That comment was regarding that particular image, and the deletion discussion that arose out of it. I would avoid generalising it to all their images. Simply put, I think this image has an educational purpose and cannot plausibly harm the photographer or subjects in any way. However, I'd be happy to delete it if a higher-quality substitute for the depicted topics were made available. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point entirely. This image was uploaded to Commons by User:TwoWings (a cropped version was later uploaded by the prolific porn uploader User:Max Rebo Band, although the log has been altered by persons unknown to remove their name). The photographer has stated here that they do not want the images on Commons and consider the "posting of my photography and commentary are in violation of my private life and those who are in the photographs". That seems like a clear appeal to COM:IDENT. The photographer obviously did not realize that their choice of license on Flickr would allow someone to post an age-restricted Flickr image to Commons where anyone could see it, reuse it, and follow the link to their Flickr account and real life identity. It is not necessary for the faces of the models to be clearly in view for there to be identity concerns. We don't need this image. It is not in use on any project. Why would we keep this against the wishes of the creator of the image? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing new since the previous DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept No new argument since last DR. Yann (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyviol, Google maps Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio of Google Maps James F. (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Fairuse. The subject of this photo is a statue of copyrighted creature. Vantey (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Just like the one on the english version. Is there a way to illustrate a franchise without making it appear ? Regards.
Deleted: Picture of a non-PD 3D artwork; no FoP. James F. (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fairuse. The subject of this photo is a statue of copyrighted creature. Vantey (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, seems can't be free licensed per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Picture of a non-PD 3D artwork; no FoP. James F. (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and Fairuse. The subject of this photo is a statue of copyrighted creature. Vantey (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this photograph is the appearance of the building of the airport which is public space. User:ootahara 07:00, 29 April 2012 (JST)
Deleted: Picture of a non-PD 3D artwork; no FoP. James F. (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and Fairuse. The subject of this photo is a statue of copyrighted creature. Vantey (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Picture of a non-PD 3D artwork; no FoP. James F. (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong file posted 117.204.37.109 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file, requested. James F. (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The book is dated 1998, as seen here http://books.google.co.in/books/about/Religions_of_Rome_A_sourcebook.html?id=xQd82l39KX4C&redir_esc=y Yann (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a clear breach of copyright: the publisher clearly states that "no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press". As we've no such permission, I'm deleting the image from all articles to which it links. Haploidavey (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Though it is possible that the original image is PD, the source given is in copyright and no other source is offered James F. (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
is not my image this image have copyrigth http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Firma_del_artista.jpg Alberto Ospina Sousa (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In which country was this signature written? Signatures are copyrighted in some countries but not in other countries, see COM:SIG. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Tiene derechos de autor With copyrigth please delete Alberto Ospina Sousa (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 07:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The image contains a screenshot of Google Maps. Such screenshots are not free; Google Maps/Earth imagery is copyrighted High Contrast (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. That significant portion of the image at least is a derivative work of copyrighted material and thus the image can not be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I trimmed the map apparently from google map, and pasted in an alternate free map from our collection. In order to be open and transparent I think we should keep both original images used to create File:Celebrating outer space in Jalalabad -- merged.jpg.
I replaced the former image with the fixed image in the two places it was used. `
For what it is worth the tool for helping to upload derivative images barfs if one of the images has been nominated for deletion. I encountered this feature before, just yesterday -- and I wonder if thie proscription is well advised, as it really complicates addressing problems like this. Geo Swan (talk)
Kept: Original revision with copyvio element deleted. James F. (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dianamiller (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by OrcaMobilierUrbain (talk · contribs)
[edit]spam, no educational value
- File:Modele orca.jpg
- File:Jardi.jpg
- File:Grille.jpg
- File:Barriere.jpg
- File:GALLIA.jpg
- File:BANC.jpg
- File:Urbain.jpg
- File:INOX.jpg
- File:REFLEX.jpg
- File:AGORA.jpg
- File:VOY.jpg
- File:ABRI.jpg
- File:Borne.gif
- File:Bac Oasis.jpg
- File:Logo Orca.jpg
- File:Logo Orca.gif
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, spam George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, no educational use possible
- File:Frontend Utilities.png
- File:Frontend Setup.png
- File:Frontend Main.png
- File:Frontend General p1.png
- File:Frontend General.png
- File:Frontend Exit.png
- File:Backend Main.png
- File:Backend Exit2.png
- File:Backend Exit.png
- File:Ubuntu Backend.png
- File:Ubuntu Backend Prompt.png
- File:Ubuntu Frontend.png
- File:Ubuntu xfceMain.png
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Badamsambu (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Badamsambu in Great wall.jpg
- File:Badamsambu in Gobi.jpg - Kept. Used in User page -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Badamsambu in Kharakhorum.jpg
- File:Badamsambu Gendenjamts.jpg
- File:EKE 001.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Badamsambu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Badreddine Bousseta (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
out of scope
- File:WTM025.jpg
- File:Masomenoslivemixcdpromo.gif
- File:WTM009-new.jpg
- File:Bonvoyage.gif
- File:Poulet.png - Kept. Good quality bird icon -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos Perosa Ribeiro (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Vocalista1.jpg
- File:Banda performance 4.jpg
- File:600 performance equipe 3.jpg
- File:Performance equipe 1.jpg
- File:Bandamrmix logo demo.jpg
- File:Bandamrmix logo.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fernandolanao (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, promo George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CocteilDeCuvinte (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Djuraevbaxtiyor (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 4!Beatleband (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Osvaldogamarra.jpg
- File:Sebaspano.jpg
- File:Federicomiglino.jpg
- File:Earlybeatles.jpg
- File:Cavernliverpool.jpg
- File:Beatles4.jpg
- File:Beatles3.jpg
- File:Beatles2.jpg
- File:Beatles1.jpg
- File:Allan.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
- File:Lancement SMM20.jpg
- File:TRIPTYQU3.jpeg
- File:Funny Games 2.jpg
- File:Mechanical Market.jpg
- File:Beautiful Victims 2.jpg
- File:Beautiful Victims.jpg
- File:Jutra 2.jpg
- File:Funny Games.jpg
- File:So far away.jpg
- File:Polaire 2.jpg
- File:La cité.jpg
- File:La quête.jpg
- File:Triptyqu3.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dreamhypnotique (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photo: Stas Levshin
- File:Best Friends Forever.jpeg
- File:Women, in Love.jpg
- File:Je Me Rends.jpg
- File:Really, We're Only Animals.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ArticleAdmissible (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Thinking about my life - Big Choc - Biggi Choqqi.jpg
- File:Big Choc - Portait.jpg
- File:Big Choc - Mixtape Oyster - Cover Art Work.jpg
- File:Big Choc- I Think.jpg
- File:Big Choc with Closed eyes.jpg
- File:Big Choc Choqqi.jpg
- File:Big Choc.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://www.qfix-robotics.de/images/Grape-main-window-with-code.png without permission KMic (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot of a non-free content. -- Ra'ike T C 10:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since it's a wartime version (notice fender and only one headlight) it dates to before 1945. // Liftarn (talk)
- Well, but what about the dates of picture creation and first publication? Kobac (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- You could visit a library. Not everything's online... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of this being a Ukrainian work. It was uploaded with PD-Soviet, so PD-Ukraine appears to be a case of false licencing. russavia (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. russavia (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Ukraine}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence of this photo first being published in the Ukrainian SSR, so PD-Ukraine will not apply. Undelete in 2015 under PD-Russia-2008 russavia (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not own work. Yann (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree, considering this "high profile" ceremony.—Bill william comptonTalk 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, 34 results on tineye—BoseritwikTalk 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted as copyvio Mys 721tx (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not own work. Yann (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Not a chance.—Bill william comptonTalk 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – 59 results on tineye.—BoseritwikTalk 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as copyvio Mys 721tx (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not own work. Yann (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree, considering this "high profile" ceremony.—Bill william comptonTalk 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree, found number of results on tineye and google images.—BoseritwikTalk 06:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Fake license, I think.
Kobac (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Morning Sunshine and Zscout370 Captain-tucker (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logos.
Kobac (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- File:ADFerroviaria.png The crest is from a dissepeared football team in spain. Was created in 1918. The crest belong to that year. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrupaci%C3%B3n_Deportiva_Ferroviaria
- File:RacingClubMadrid.png The crest is from a dissepeared football team in spain. Was created in 1914, and dssapeared in 1931. The crest belong to that period. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_Club_de_Madrid
--Brgesto (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Anything created in the 20th century is not old enough to be able to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. Although we may not know the author of the two crests, that does not mean that the were anonymously created. In the absence of evidence that either the authors died before 1942 or that they were actually created anonymously, we cannot keep them on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to source information, these pictures are for private use only: "De foto’s mogen alleen voor particulier gebruik worden geprint of verwerkt". Althought, I can't translate it accurately.
- File:De Spaanse voetballer Alfredo Di Stefano in aktie op 29 december 1959.jpg
- File:Francisco Paco Gento voetballer.jpg
Ralgistalk 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Surrogacy-UK (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it's true most don't have EXIF, but resolutions aren't small and I see no other reason why this would be not own work, missing exif isn't a deletion reason by itself Jcb (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like some notability and potential in scope usefulness. A Google search for "Barrie Drewitt-Barlow" (did you try that before nominating?) shows the couple to have been the first Gay couple to become fathers in the UK, and there are articles about them over a period of years in such mass media as the BBC, Daily Mail, and Mirror. I've added Category:Same-sex couples. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination My bad, the name rang a bell but I didn't do enough research. I found some more picture of them, it seems the image shows the couple you mentioned. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 20:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Not a banner, duplicate of File:Arms of Llywelyn.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected JuTa 19:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, game logo added to screenshot and then modified using paint (addition of "source" and "9" painted over "8" concerning no of game modes) Captain Screebo (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, first time here, no indication of licence or whatever on FB page, simple stealing as far as I can see. Captain Screebo (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio micki 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is inaccurate and redundant. It should be replaced on all projects with file:Political map of the Low Countries (1350)-NL.svg. Signed as author of both files, Sir Iain (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
-NL.svg){kind=link}
- Universal replace requested. Lymantria (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Lymantria (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This image violates the copyright of Sotsu, Sunrise Inc. and some copyright holders. This image are not intended that can be free with the OTRS permission of the only one copyright holder. Vantey (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Released under an incorrect license. Appears to be a copy vio from http://baleswarbaghas.com/baghas/ AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No information about the author of this old picture and his/her permission. Kobac (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ralgis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/55-501/chap21.htm The source is properly cited to a US army manual. There IS NO BASIS FOR DELETING THIS FILE. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the photo is created by an employee of the U.S. Federal Government. No evidence of a free copyright status. Martin H. (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Barn_Swallow_-_Hirundo_rustica.ogv McZusatz (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is said to be that of Dr Jyoti Prasad Pattnaik. Who is he? Notable? No usage of this pic on any wiki - probably unworhty of any use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The uploader intends to highlight a charity run in kenya. no identifiable person nor the event properly highlighted . Unused and unusable pic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to pic of one Deepak Chopra. Who is Deepak Chopra? Notable? Unused and unusable image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Out of scope. See also Vikas thakur. Trijnsteltalk 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image painted by himself, but I miss a permission statement send by OTRS. Out of scope? Copyvio? See also Vikas thakur. Trijnsteltalk 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Image painted by himself, but I miss a permission statement send by OTRS. Out of scope? Copyvio? See also Vikas thakur. Trijnsteltalk 18:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belarus. 84.61.181.19 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belarus. 84.61.181.19 19:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this really own work? This photo appears together with old photos and documents here and here, suggesting that the photo is old. Unfortunately, I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew, so I can't tell if the pages provide any information about the source of the photo. Stefan4 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely not PD-old because it is absolutely thinkable that the author of the image is not dead for 70 years 92.74.138.83 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG available at File:Diamond road sign roundabout.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign mini-roundabout.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign dangerous corner.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign dangerous corners.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign guarded crossing.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign single lane.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign lane splits.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign overhead electic cables.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign road narrow left.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign road narrows.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign automatic crossing.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign Tram lane crossing ahead.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign tunnel.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign traffic lights.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign sheeps.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign merging-diverging road.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign staggered junction equal roads.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Diamond road sign traffic lights.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
sourced to "Bombwal family" - uploader not the copyright holder and can't apply given license Hekerui (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belarus. 84.61.181.19 10:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
How can we use {{PD-Russia-2008}} if we can't check the date? Kobac (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The images were uploaded by me to the Encyclopedia of Bus Transport in Hong Kong ( http://hkbus.wikia.com ) in late January[5], but User:Siriuskong uploaded them to Commons without my permission, as well as stating them as "上傳者自己的作品" (Own work by uploader). -MP7638 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](http://hkbus.wikia.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:PJ5187-63R.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No information about the author of this old picture and his/her permission. Kobac (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp. Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp.
Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp. Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC) The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp. Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC) The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp. Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as is known, stamps of this country are not in the public domain. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC) The picture is in public domain not postage stamp. I never stated that the postage stamp is in public domain I have scanned the envelope and it is therefore my own work. So, I can put it in public domain. As the postage stamp is a part of the picture if (only if) the owner of the copyright wants to remove the picture it can do it. Otherwise my picture made FAIR USE of (probably) copyrighted postage stamp. Grad mladosti (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The relief work on the stela is three-dimensional, so photographs of it cannot be public domain according to the relevant policy page, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. A. Parrot (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – This too like all other uploads from this user is surely not hers.—BoseritwikTalk 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe this is actually "own work", this looks like it was grabbed from the web somewhere, cropped from a group shot and then photoshopped or similar. Rosenzweig τ 12:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The emblem on his shirt is that of en:Nyíregyháza Spartacus FC, where this player played in 2007 according to hu.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Two very similar images of other players here and here. --Rosenzweig τ 13:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Alfred Ost died in 1945. Not in public domain. 82.120.34.180 17:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je ne sais comment faire pour obtenir l’autorisation des ayant-droit de l’artiste. Je trouve sur un site l’adresse suivante, d’une personne qui serait l’oncle (!) d’Alfred Ost:
- De Heer F. Ost
- Eendrachtstraat, 49
- 1050 Brussel
On imagine qu’il doit s’agir d’une personne d’un âge très avancé. Faut-il lui adresser un courrier? Ne pourrait-on se satisfaire d’assortir l’image dans Commons de la mention « Tous droits réservés. Erven Alfred Ost. », ce qui voudrait dire : autorisation doit être demandée aux ayant-cause pour toute utilisation hors wikipédia? Il serait fort dommage en tous cas que les articles sur Alfred Ost soient privés de leurs illustrations.Torsade de Pointes (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No proof that author died more than 70 yrs ago. MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Photographers are rarely cited on postcards. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree, This too like all other uploads of the user is not her work.User:Boseritwik (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Claims to be a professional photographer! Might be own work! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It would be nice if more professionals contribute to Commons, but I think that a confirmation via OTRS is needed. If only small images without EXIF data are uploaded, there is too much doubt. I asked him at the end of April and he has not answered. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen your message in uploader's talk page! Have we done reverse image search? If the image is not available in any other site in internet, we can wait for few more days– what do you think? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, no copy found on the Internet. You may try to send him an email. So we could close this DR after a few days. Yann (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- She does not have email enabled in her Commons and Wikipedia account. She has a very common name! I have tried to trace her following her writing style and the best match I have found is this Facebook profile. Interested in photography, but living in Navi Mumbai currently!
BTW, I have found this photo is available in internet. But, the one two sites I have checked have published this image recently (so, there is possibility that they have copied from Commons)!
This image was uploaded in Commons on 1 September 2009. Using advanced search I have tried to find only those sites where this image was published before 1 September 2009, but I have not found any result!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- She does not have email enabled in her Commons and Wikipedia account. She has a very common name! I have tried to trace her following her writing style and the best match I have found is this Facebook profile. Interested in photography, but living in Navi Mumbai currently!
- Yes, no copy found on the Internet. You may try to send him an email. So we could close this DR after a few days. Yann (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen your message in uploader's talk page! Have we done reverse image search? If the image is not available in any other site in internet, we can wait for few more days– what do you think? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It would be nice if more professionals contribute to Commons, but I think that a confirmation via OTRS is needed. If only small images without EXIF data are uploaded, there is too much doubt. I asked him at the end of April and he has not answered. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Likely not PD-old because it is absolutely thinkable that the author of the image is not dead for 70 years 92.74.138.83 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep the photographer is unknown and there is no evidence that he's not dead since 70 years -- Steinbeisser (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It isn't just like the iPhone icon, it is an exact duplicate. 144.189.100.25 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not exactly the same. I'd say PD-shape applies --DieBuche (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Iphone map icon Secretlondon (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect, that the map is not own work, but copyright violation. Also probably the filename should be protected as too generic. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly an extract from somewhere else, derivative, not own work. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation; This is a photo of a stage performance, while the photographer has licensed the photo, the subject of the photo is also subject to copyright. While a still image of a performing band may not always contain sufficient creativity to qualify for copyright, here there is a background image, elevated platforms, unusual lighting, pyrotechnic effects, other decorations, and costumes. When combined they create a creative work subject to copyright protection. As there is no licensing information for that work, this image must be deleted. Monty845 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - oh please. IIRC special effects cannot be "copyrighted" in the way you state. There are other copyvios to worry about. The photographer has licensed the photo and that's that. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment- Whilst pyrotechnic effects cannot be copyrighted other aspects of the show can, I don't know of any Test cases of lighting design copyright being challenged in the U.S. but they certainly are copyright in some countries (see the Eiffel Tower for example), and I've seen stage design in the UK copyrighted in this manner. The most problematic for me is the mural at the rear which is not protected under FOP in the U.S. and is a substantial part of the image. The smaller murals on the stage are probably de minimis (although I disagree with this argument for commons images it is policy to accept). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The mural in the back's logo would IMO fall under PD-text. I cannot distinguish what is supposed to be under the logo as well, so I don't think it's problematic. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- My claim is not that any one element of the show is necessarily subject to copyright, each individual element isn't that creative, but the combination of the elements into a performance is a sufficiently creative work to result in copyright protection, and that the image then violates that protection. Monty845 (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything that you can prove that this qualifies for protection? Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Connormah - The Mural is the photograph from the cover of their album Awake en:File:Skilletawake2009albumart.jpg and while the most detailed piece of that (the eye) is partly obscured by a performer it's clear enough in comparison with the album cover... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- My claim is not that any one element of the show is necessarily subject to copyright, each individual element isn't that creative, but the combination of the elements into a performance is a sufficiently creative work to result in copyright protection, and that the image then violates that protection. Monty845 (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The mural at the back would fall under copyright, and I think it is too prominent a part of this photograph to qualify as de minimis. This is due to the "SKILLET" logo, which I believe is probably too creative for {{PD-textlogo}} to apply (with its L horizontal stroke replacing part of the E), and also the bandages and the (partly obscured) eye. I don't know about the stage design, but IMO the mural is enough reason to delete. --Avenue (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Wouldn't blurring the mural prevent any copyright infringement (from the mural itself) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- If it was blurred enough to be unrecognisable, then yes, I think so. Blacking it out might be easier and safer. --Avenue (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I've been looking at this before Monty brought it my attention, originally intending to stay to the side, yet the more I look, the more I conclude that it is acceptable on a couple of points. First, the totality of the display may be copyrightable in certain circumstances, but I feel this falls short since the majority of the stage show is quite mundane for a musical act: lights, crowd, musicians, the banner, and a starkly bland stage with no particularly unique characteristics, save for a few puffs of flame, which is again not unique. Second, the lettered Skillet logo itself is less "artistic" than many other logos that offer more detail, like the New York Arrows,[6], an oft used example. The wrapped person is arguably copyrightable but is so obscured and incidental to the totality of the image that it would quality as de minimis for all intents and purposes as it is clearly not the central focus and it is sufficiently obscured. If the banner didn't exist or was a blank white sheet, it wouldn't diminish the quality of the information being transferred by the image, demonstrating it's minimal effect. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![[6]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/NY_Arrows_logo.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Mural background clearly has a copyright, as for the rest, amybe, maybe not, but the mural is enough . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Photos by Piotr Szulik
[edit]File:Jan Kociniak.jpg- There's an OTRS entry for this file, does it apply to other files too? A.J. (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Małgorzata Duda.jpg
- File:Ewa Szykulska.jpg
- File:Magdalena Cwenówna.jpg
- File:Adam Hanuszkiewicz.jpg
- File:Skaldowie.jpg
- File:Stanisław Szelc.jpg
- File:Tadeusz Drozda.jpg
- File:Wiesław Michnikowski.jpg
- File:Wieslaw Gołas.jpg
- File:Robert Gorski.jpg
- File:Mikolaj Cieslak.jpg
- File:Jerzy Zelnik.jpg
- File:Justyna Sieńczyłło.jpg
- File:Kabaret Moralnego Niepokoju.jpg
- File:Leonard Pietraszak.jpg
- File:Leszek Niedzielski.jpg
- File:Maciej Stuhr.jpg
- File:Magdalena Zawadzka.jpg
- File:Przemyslaw Borkowski.jpg
- File:Marek Grechuta.jpg
- File:Rafal Zbiec.jpg
- File:Henryk Talar.jpg
- File:Katarzyna Pakosinska.jpg
- File:Irena Kwiatkowska.jpg
- File:Jacek Krzaklewski.jpg
- File:Jacek Zielinski.jpg
- File:Jan Kobuszewski.jpg
- File:Jan Matyjaszkiewicz.jpg
- File:Jan Peszek.jpg
- File:Jan Pietrzak.jpg
- File:Jerzy Skoczylas.jpg
- File:Bohdan Smoleń.jpg
- File:Anawa grupa muzyczna.jpg
- File:Andrzej Rosiewicz.jpg
- File:Dariusz Kozakiewicz.jpg
- File:Emilian Kamiński.jpg
- File:Golec uOrkiestra.jpg
- File:Grzegorz Markowski3.jpg
- File:Zespół Perfect.jpg
- File:Piotr Urbanek.jpg
- File:Piotr Szkudelski.jpg
Already deleted by {{Npd}}:
According to short quote of email (not verified by OTRS) the author:
- did not choose any specific license
- granted a Wikipedia-only permission
A.J. (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The permission was "Of course you can use it without any restrictions". Please note that this was sent in response to an email making it very clear that further use and copying is allowed - the appropriate initial email is not attached to the OTRS ticket in question. A choice of GFDL and CC licenses were given but the reply was simply "without any restrictions". Conclusion - don't delete the files and undele the ones which are gone. Zureks (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "you may use without restriction" and "anyone may use without restrictions" and I would certainlny not unterstend is as "you may choose any license you want". In my opion such response is too vague to be used as license proof. But if it's really what copyright owner meant, it should be "{{CopyrightedFreeUse}} not CC, because it has attribution restriction. Relevant OTRS ticket also should be present on every file. A.J. (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should write to him, explain how the copyright law works, and wait, because not everyone understands. However, the pics seem GDFL to me, by the author's intentions. Poeticbent talk 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Milene sarquissiano (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
iPhone images uploaded by Akshayaradhya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Don't really look like "own work" to me, at least not the original image. Most likely all grabbed from the web and then altered.
Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I read about this at COM:
#- File:Noto-beef-authentic-plate.JPG: can't tell about this. Taken with a Nikon camera and uploaded 20 days after photography. File:Notoushi.jpg is probably clean because it was uploaded to Commons on the date of photography (compare EXIF date with upload date: might be too little time to copy it from somewhere) and was taken with a Canon camera, and this may cast some doubt on the Nikon camera, although it is entirely possible that the user has both a Nikon camera and a Canon camera. I don't know if the sign is copyrightable or if there might be freedom of panorama concerns.
- Certificates: One here. Can't find the other one. Unlikely own work and presumably copyrightable. Unlikely in COM:SCOPE#scope anyway.
- Seals: Might be ineligible for copyright (cf. cup noodles: the cup is too simple to be copyrighted according to en:Tokyo High Court). The プレミアム能登牛one has some rather complex art in the top-left corner which might be an issue. I'd like to hear the opinion of someone else here. Both appear elsewhere on the Internet.
- File:プレミアムシール.jpg
- File:能登牛プレミアム認定書.JPG
- File:Noto-beef-authentic-plate.JPG
- File:Certificate of Noto beef.gif
- File:Noto beef seal.gif
Stefan4 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete All Noto beef's trademarks and certificate images.--KAMUI (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Seals and certifications in blank cannot be PD, legally. File:Noto-beef-authentic-plate.JPG can be kept. Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Seals and certifications are not free, are fairuse. File:Noto-beef-authentic-plate.JPG is "own work", it is doubtful. Vantey (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of books, postcards and stamps. Unfortunately, the books, stamps and postcards are unsourced, so their copyright status can't be determined. Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - de minimis; and could someone check if it:File:Filatelia Stumenti e materiali.jpg was a larger version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as Pieter : restore it:File:Filatelia_Stumenti_e_materiali.jpg, I uploaded a wrong version. Greudin (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The whole point with the image is to show the stamps, the books and the postcards, so I fail to see how they can be de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment @Pieter Kuiper & Greudin: are you familiar with courts' and/or the scientific literature's interpretation of the provision in italian copyright law or not? —Pill (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Abruka tuletorn 2008.jpg
- File:Kesse ülemine tulepaak 2008.jpg
- File:Laidunina tuletorn 2007.jpg
- File:Mehikoorma tuletorn 2007.jpg
- File:Norrby ülemine tuletorn 2011.jpg
- File:Paslepa ülemine tulepaak 2008.jpg
- File:Prangli loode tulepaak 2009.jpg
- File:Pöörilaiu tulepaak 2007.jpg
- File:Ruhnu tuletorn 2005.jpg
- File:Telisna alumine päevamärk 2007.jpg
- File:Telisna ülemine päevamärk 2007.jpg
- File:Vilsandi paadikuur 27251.jpg
- File:Vilsandi tuletorn 2008.jpg
- File:Ihasalu tuletorn 2007.jpg
- File:Keri tuletorn 2005.jpg
per EXIF and watermark photo by SV (Sven Vaarandi), no permission Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reasonable doubt about Panoramio user Tuderna being Sven Vaarandi. Otherwise how can we ever be sure that Panoramio, Flickr or Wikipedia user is not impersonating someone else? I found a random source indicating that this Panoramio porfolio is by Sven Vaarandi, also someone approaching Tuderna at some other portal and calling him "Sven", but nothing indicating that the images are by someelse than the Panoramio user himself. 90.190.114.172 17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There are hundreds of photos with same EXIF/Camera on that account. Either Tuderna stole them en masse from Sven Vaarandi or he is Sven Vaarandi. Given the evidence above, I'd rather believe the latter. Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
All files in Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama
[edit]- Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama
- File:South Indian actress Kamna Jethmalani's photo-shoot (4).jpg
- File:RaniMukerji.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
REQUEST WITHDRAWN. I bring this topic into Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 instead. Teofilo (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Main problem :
- The license is not an acceptable license per Commons:Licensing : the condition "and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided" is too restrictive. Derivative works on off-line media, such as on paper, on a screen in a movie theatre, etc. must be allowed. Also, the license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. If the licensor decides to close its website, it amounts to a revocation. We must ensure that the file remains free even if the licensor closes its website.
Other problems :
- Lack of a clear standard as regards the definition of "promotional poster" is File:Diana Hayden.jpg a promotional poster ? If I make a poster out of it and promote the artist with it, won't it become a "promotional poster" ?
- Lack of a clear standard as regards the definition of "screenshots". File:Fmi 2008.jpg is the "The winners of Femina Miss India 2008". This was probably a broadcast event. How can we know if this picture is a screenshot or rule out that it is one ? The description of File:Vijender boxing.jpg says "prepairing for a boxing match on a television show". If it is a television show, isn't this picture likely to be a "screenshot" ? Teofilo (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The licensor has changed the original website name, which was formerly IndiaFM.com: diff. The fact that all reusers have to modify the attribution manner as soon as the licensor changes its website name is not workable.
- Is the mention of IndiaFM in the |Author= field of the information template for example on File:Sushmita Sen2.jpg, correct ? Should it not be "bollywoodhungama.com" instead ? Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The source link http://www.indiafm.com/stills/partiesnevents/Rani_Mukherjee_at_Amul_Star_Voice_Of_India/still24016.html at File:RaniMukerji.jpg is broken. Wikimedia Commons is presently infringing the licensing terms because a broken link is not "running". My understanding of "running" is that the link must be alive, not dead. Teofilo (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Are we sure that Bollywood Hungama/IndiaFM owns the copyright on this image ? The same picture is displayed at http://www.bollyone.com/rani-mukherjee-at-amul-star-voice-of-india/ with "Bollyone.com" watemark on the large size picture at http://www.bollyone.com/bollywood_gallery/gallery.php?entry=images/Rani_Amul_Star_voice_BOLLYONE.COM_3.jpg This picture looks like a screenshot, and another picture of the same series is marked with "Movie : Rani Mukherjee At Amul Star Voice Of India" at http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/id/1137596 . The question is: who is the movie producer ? According to en:Amul STAR Voice of India, this television program was produced by en:Star Plus. So there is an other problem with those uploads: there is a doubt on the claimed copyright ownership. Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)I finally found the picture at http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/id/1137596 (you must click on the thumbnails a number of times to browse the series)
- File:PreityZinta.jpg is also sourced with a dead link. And the same picture is available on another website here (click on "5"), as part of a series. I found the series at http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties/id/1143562 but the picture is now cut. How are we supposed to provide "direct links" when the pictures are addressed by javascript only, without a clear html link ? And why are we requested to provide proper attribution, while the other website website here (click on "5") is not ? Are we sure they hired the photographer ? Did they not simply buy publication rights, without a full transfer of copyright ownership ? Teofilo (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- A simple reason, the site underwent server and look change just from the beginning of this year. We faced the same problem in Wikipedia, when the link became dead. Assuming good faith, i request you to keep all the images as many images are part of Good articles in Wikipedia. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Commons is a repository of free picture, not a repository of "good faith use" (fair use) pictures. Teofilo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- We have the reviewer process for exactly this reason, the links have been verified to exist (and under the correct license agreement) by a license reviewer. This is no different from a flickr image where the flickr license has been subsequently changed or removed, or even where the account is no longer in use. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Flickr pictures are not subject to the condition: "and a direct link running to the source on their site is provided". And I am wondering which percentage of these pictures are similar with Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Teofilo (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if we remove the pics from commons, and add to Wikipedia only, it would be okay? Bollyjeff (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- We have the reviewer process for exactly this reason, the links have been verified to exist (and under the correct license agreement) by a license reviewer. This is no different from a flickr image where the flickr license has been subsequently changed or removed, or even where the account is no longer in use. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Commons is a repository of free picture, not a repository of "good faith use" (fair use) pictures. Teofilo (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:South_Indian_actress_Kamna_Jethmalani's_photo-shoot_(4).jpg is a cut version of http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/celebs/indian-stars/Kamna-Jethmalani/articleshow/7914197.cms where it is credited with "Pic: Viral Bhayani". I have a doubt whether BollywoodHungama rather than Viral Bhayani owns the copyright. Teofilo (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to our OTRS ticket, Bollywood Hungama sends their on staff or contracted photographers to parties and events (the only type of images allowed under the CC-by-3.0 license are those listed under that category) and the photographers turn over their copyright to the website. The ticket itself was done a long while before I joined OTRS and had over 5-6 OTRS volunteers involved (I wasn't part of the discussion). —SpacemanSpiff 15:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- If BollywoodHungama were the copyright owner, the Times of India would credit the picture as "BollywoodHungama.com/Viral Bhayani", by the same token that this one is credited "Reuters/Paul Hackett". Also, they don't recruit photographers. Teofilo (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- BH is widely syndicated offline and online, so I wouldn't read too much into that. From that link it appears they don't recruit janitors either, so their toilets must all be clogged. If you have any specific concerns, then I think we can discuss, but bringing up arguments such as the lack of an ad for photographers is just plain absurd. —SpacemanSpiff 07:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If BollywoodHungama were the copyright owner, the Times of India would credit the picture as "BollywoodHungama.com/Viral Bhayani", by the same token that this one is credited "Reuters/Paul Hackett". Also, they don't recruit photographers. Teofilo (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep all There is a reason for the links as explained above. The license with the website is sorted thtrough OTRS ticket. There is no problem with using the images and it would be incredibly damagaing to wikipedia to lose them all for no valid reason.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Copied from Com:CC-BY-SA: "...If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information..." (emphasis mine). —SpacemanSpiff 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information. Those web pages do not contain licensing information, or rather they do: they say "Copyright © 2012 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved". So the pictures are unfree. Also why did the OTRS volunteers agree to change "to the extent reasonably practicable" into "a direct link running" without nuance as regards the cases when it is not practicable ? Teofilo (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- A very STRONG keep to all. I find it not only NOT practical but most of Mr Teofilo reasonings regarding the BH license make no sense to me and I do not agree of the "reasons" he is stating at all. Not even 1 of them. As for Rani's pic, I suppose it's hopeless, so there is nothing that could be done, but if we can salvage the link, then it should be kept. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- A STRONG keep to all and i would suggest SPEEDY keep. I agree with Meryam. Most of nominator's arguments make no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the license issue is sorted through OTRS ticket and that by itself is good enough. I do not see any valid reason for removing these images, and there better be a damn good one if these many images are to be removed. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was quite natural for the OTRS volunteers to assume that the copyright claim was OK and that the agreed terms were workable, 4 years ago, in 2008. But 4 years later, there are too many problems and we have to review whether this OTRS ticket provides enough guarantees as regards copyright ownership and enough guidance as regards the practical technicalities to comply with those extremely complicated licensing terms. How do you keep "direct links running" when the website changes its name, and puts the pictures on javascript image viewers ? Or when you want to reuse the pictures on an offline medium ? 4 years ago, it looked simple. But today, it seems too complicated and unreliable. Teofilo (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Teofilo, Do you wanna revise the OTRS with more clarity or something, or sort out how the images on java scripts can be credited? Or what to do with link changes due to BH's server change and such things? Changing OTRS ticket can be done without deleting 1000+ images. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was quite natural for the OTRS volunteers to assume that the copyright claim was OK and that the agreed terms were workable, 4 years ago, in 2008. But 4 years later, there are too many problems and we have to review whether this OTRS ticket provides enough guarantees as regards copyright ownership and enough guidance as regards the practical technicalities to comply with those extremely complicated licensing terms. How do you keep "direct links running" when the website changes its name, and puts the pictures on javascript image viewers ? Or when you want to reuse the pictures on an offline medium ? 4 years ago, it looked simple. But today, it seems too complicated and unreliable. Teofilo (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I can't see how problems with links could bring to this proposal when everything is so carefully checked and verified before appearing on our pages. Shshshsh (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- How do you know that everything is "carefully checked" ? Are you an employee of bollywoodhungama.com ? Teofilo (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Check the OTRS ticket you bleedin imbecile. We have OTRS tickets for a reason to stop knob heads like you trying to delete everything!! LOL @ NPA!! Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not see a convincing reason to doubt the copyright claim of the website. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - No convincing argument from the nom. Looks like a case of IDONTLIKEIT.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Already got OTRS tickets for them. No need to make a fuss over links. Fireblazex3 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I like Bollywood Hungama photos, i couldn't care less about the licensing. LOL. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- REQUEST WITHDRAWN. I bring this topic into Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 instead. Teofilo (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is a saying "If it aint broke, don't fix it". It would be different if somebody contacted wikipedia complaining that they owned the copyrights and Bollywood Hungama didn't. But I can assure you a LOT of hard work and time went into making this agreement and ensuring that they do own the images. Above all it frustrates me a lot here that you clearly didn't bother to look into the OTRS ticket first and contact the tickeeters who made it happen before nominating over a thousand decent images for deletion based on nothing but your own paranoia and clearly no consideration for how many articles would degrade in quality. As for dead links, similar things happen with flickr images which were there and sealed with approval on the day they were made under that license. As long as when the source was uploaded it met all criteria then there's nothing anybody can do to remove them from wikipedia. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Question we interprete the ticket in a way that we can perpetually take all files from that website. Copyright law not protects not yet existing works, so a copyright holder also cant grant a license fo not yet existing works. The ticket is from March 2008, is it legaly possible that the ticket grants a license for works created after March 2008 or can the ticket only refer to works published on the website before that date? --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The ticket has been issued to us for all images that are under the "parties and events" category of images on their website for past, present and future images as of that date, as to the question of releasing images that don't yet exist, I really don't know; perhaps this is a question that should be addressed at vp/copyright as I'm sure this isn't the only ticket that has it. On a side note, I've nominated at least two other such OTRS tickets for deletion (Cinefundas one has been at DR for the past four months!), but I haven't noticed those problems yet with BH. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: REQUEST WITHDRAWN. I bring this topic into Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012 instead. Teofilo . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)