Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_Doorsneden_van_de_toren.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Église02.jpg){kind=link}
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of the United States.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. --McZusatz (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Germany.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Needlessly inflamatory. Large amount of text in the image. (uploader previously removed speedydelete tag) – JBarta (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've requested speedy deletion of the file, as the images is certainly not in public domain. --Jackl (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Also see Football at Milan.jpg. Is a duplicate of this file. – JBarta (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Most probally a copyvio, if the uploader is the owner that there should be OTRS permision before we can use this image Huib talk Abigor @ meta 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request removed from image description page per OTRS permission. --Krd 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
, Huib talk Abigor @ meta 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Most probally a copyvio, if the uploader is the owner that there should be OTRS permision before we can use this image Huib talk Abigor @ meta 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request removed from image per valid OTRS permission. --Krd 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
, Huib talk Abigor @ meta 13:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
When I look at the other upload(s) of this user I do not think we can believe that this is own work Huib talk Abigor @ meta 13:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong license. Don't know how to change it. So i want to upload it again Javacode (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Will help this new editor to work out our system. russavia (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of scope (COM:SCOPE). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Clearer and higher resolution image will be uploaded Frutarine (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Image is copyrighted at its original flickr source [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded in 2010 to http://img20.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-17490/loc431/48067_holland_picnic_relaxation_13_123_431lo.jpg where it has a copyright warning. Probably Golgnia also stole those other uploads of nudism pictures. 95.199.16.147 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Quoth the server, 404. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freikörperkultur 4.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freikörperkultur 3.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freikörperkultur 2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nackt.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete It is a typical situation on a German nude beach. --BBKurt (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is about copyright, which cannot be solved simply because it's a typical situation. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You are right. I wasn't aware of the copyright violation.--BBKurt (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation. Nuked uploads; blocked editor. russavia (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what use we could have for this image. Maybe colon surgery articles? Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Good example. No reason given to delete this file. -- Common Good (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Own work, who would believe it? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude sunbathing.jpg for a confirmed image theft. 95.199.16.147 22:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - File:Nude picnic 2.jpg is seen in thumbnail at [2], which was in Feb 08, well before upload here. Looks likely this is a serial copyvioer. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Own work by uploader? In his dreams, maybe. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude sunbathing.jpg for confimed stolen picture. 95.199.16.147 22:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - File:Nude picnic 2.jpg is seen in thumbnail at [3], which was in Feb 08, well before upload here. Looks likely this is a serial copyvioer. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, but how'd you find this? Handcuffed (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- See the linked DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Skewdriveur first called this File:Naked Volleyball.jpg - I doubt it is own work. 95.199.16.147 23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps English is not his first language, and so he got the sport's name wrong?
Keep unless there is actual evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good quality, freely licensed file. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, doubt's are no reason for deletion, we need evidence.--FAEP (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Doubts must lead to deletion; there are only three contributions by Skewdriveur (talk · contribs), he has not established any credibility, there is no exif; good evidence is needed to keep these photos. --95.199.22.105 20:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Assume good faith, Google Search by Image returns nothing older. Handcuffed (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Handcuffed PierreSelim (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: Deleted, obvious copyvio from http://www.nudedphotos.com/photo/russian-badminton-nudist-teens.shtml (or its former incarnation).-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
"Skewdriveur" first called this File:2 Naked Volleyball.jpg - I doubt it is his own work. 95.199.16.147 23:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps he just named it wrong. Google has a few other hits, but all posted after it was uploaded here. Keep unless there is actual evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps he made a mistake with "own work". /95.199.16.147 00:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, freely licensed work, used on multiple sites. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per mattbuck and Cirt.--FAEP (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Assume good faith, Google Search by Image returns nothing older. Handcuffed (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Handcuffed PierreSelim (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: Deleted, obvious copyvio from http://www.nudedphotos.com/photo/russian-badminton-nudist-teens.shtml (or its former incarnation).-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Subject clearly did not consent to be photographed. 95.199.16.147 23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is on a world naked bike ride. It's in public, there is no expectation of privacy. If you don't consent to being photographed, close the curtains and never leave your house; don't take off your clothes and go cycling through the streets of a major city. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, public ride on public street with other members of biking public. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per mattbuck. Handcuffed (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per mattbuck PierreSelim (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Poorly drawn (the section involving the chlorine) image of an erroneous structure (sphingomyelin chloride is a salt (i.e. ionic)) Koumz (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Decent point. The compound by this name apparently does exist and might use a correct image to replace this one (although, given that I found exactly one scientific paper on the compound, and that a passing reference from 1967, its use in any Wiki articles any time soon is unlikely). Your disputed tag should serve the purpose I was driving at. This is one of a number of images uploaded by a problem user, but it does not seem to be a copyvio or a blatant hoax like his/her others. Koumz (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect (as tagged)--chloride would be loose anion with N+ (not bound to N). Have several correct structures of sphingomyelin in Category:Sphingolipids, would be easy enough to put a Cl– next to one as a derivative work if there were a need, but this image is currently only used in a userspace gallery. DMacks (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Incorrect, really poor quality and better alternatives. --Leyo 18:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Note I now see that the image has previously (and recently!) been through DR, but that the del tag was then removed from the file page without an historical DR note left on the image talk-page and with the the actual discussion having been left open for the past several weeks unattended. The previous discussion apparently led to a disputed tag being added to the image, and then no action to fix it, so we're left with an image that is factually incorrect and that nobody seems to care enough about to fix it. Process is confusing here, so at worst consider my re-nom as a Delete concurrence with the original and hopefully a trigger to get this DR listed and then eventually closed properly. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- If consensus is that it's incorrect, poor quality, better alternatives exist and no one wishes to correct this image, then sure... delete. (I'll strike my 'Keep' vote above.) – JBarta (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
offensive 82.66.33.152 15:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept, not offensive, Commons is not censored. Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Own work? In your dreams! See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude sunbathing.jpg for more by same uploader. 95.199.16.147 22:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - seen in thumbnail at [4], which was in Feb 08, well before upload here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Scenes like the one on the photo are not that unusual in Germany. Friends of nudidity often meet at beaches etc. and have a pignic without putting on their clothes. You can find a lot of nude people here doing all kinds of sports like riding, cycling, swimming etc. I do not think that there is a reason why that photo should be deleted. Going e. g. to the German island of Rügen scenes like this are everyday-reality and no dream as you thought. Sorry, NO DELITION, please --BBKurt (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. BBKurt, this is not about nuditity but about copyright infringement. The uploader has stolen this photos from elsewhere. Also his other uploads, it appeast that uploader User:Vacholo is an account created on Commons for the only purpose to upload copyvio photos and then dissapear. --Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You are right. I wasn't aware of the copyright violation. --BBKurt (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, per comment above--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
keine Freigabe durch Erziehungsberechtigte ersichtlich, einzige Uploads des Benutzers waren Nacktbilder - Freigabe ist fraglich. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete It isn't at all clear that this is a photo of public nudity. --Simonxag (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment If there is a reason to question the license, what is it? I don't see the relevence of "public"; unless there is some reason to delete beyond that the person visible is nude, I would vote keep. Infrogmation (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the license. As the subject of the photograph is clearly identifiable, I'm querying whether this situation was actually public: see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There's very little about the image to give context. --Simonxag (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Depends. Is the middle of the forest public? Keep -Nard the Bard 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Depends. Is the middle of the forest public?
- I'm not questioning the license. As the subject of the photograph is clearly identifiable, I'm querying whether this situation was actually public: see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There's very little about the image to give context. --Simonxag (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. can we check if the subject is an adult? she looks underage to me... isn't that a problem?--Camr (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep How couldn't it be in public while it's within a forest and apparently next to a beach? The other picture seems clear about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep The picture is taken in public and the person is obviously not hiding her nudity. I don't see how it would matter if the peron is underage or not. Otherwise pictures like this this or that would encouter the same problems, which seem ridiculous to me. --Lamilli (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep I believe that pic should stay. It is not violating anything, didn't any one check to see that it wasHomemade? If it is home made then it is not public because the only people there are those two girls and the photographer. If it was just them, then under federal law, they have to be over 18 otherwise the photographer would have been hauled off to prison. And if he was hauled of to prison, then we know for a fact that girl is under age and should be deleted. But, that pic is proof that she is at the correct age and it being on any of the Wikis means it was for the strive for knowledge and the CIA or FBI or any of the other government agencies would have deleted that pic if the photographer was hauled to jail. So therefore, I rest my case that the Naked_Badminton pic should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.8.161 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (transferred from the talk page)
Kept per discussion -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:3 Naked Badminton.jpg 2nd nomination
A few pretty girls, and gone is all skepticism about "own work". Why? 95.199.16.147 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless you actually have some evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with assessment of Lamilli (talk · contribs) from prior discussion, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, since there's no evidence for the nominators speculations.--FAEP (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussion. The anon nominator seems on campaign to remove nudity related images and has not offered any evidence of improper license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Assume good faith, Google Search by Image returns nothing older. Handcuffed (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep see Handcuffed's arguments. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
kept per Handcuffed. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: Deleted, obvious copyvio from http://www.imagefap.com/photo/149602289/?pgid=&gid=1333299&page=0.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What is the evidence that this was copied from imagefap to Commons rather than vice-versa? I see no date info at the link. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: You may see that there's a full gallery with the same naked women playing badminton, while we had only a few of them on Commons, and there's a watermark on each picture. No doubt that it was a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Tiny scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Germany.svg. No use, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unnecessary and unused duplicate. AFBorchert (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Mexico.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 00:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unnecessary and unused low resolution duplicate. AFBorchert (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this photo was published for the first time in the Ukrainian SSR. It is after 1944 due to the 3 Hero of the Soviet Union medals. No known undelete date. russavia (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Source and any information about its first publication are missing. Hence we cannot be sure about its copyright status. This has to be deleted per COM:PRP. AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Page has been deleted 3 times, picture not used, out of scope Motopark (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo. There were multiple attempts by the uploader to create an article about himself at pt-wp which all failed, see here and here. AFBorchert (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Picture source and license - is actually on a non commercial CC licence - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en - and not the licence claimed - The correct license is too restrictive a CC for commons Youreallycan (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The licence was reviewed on 7 April 2008 and found to be licenced under CC-BY. CC licences are irrevocable, even if licence is later changed. russavia (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This pic is licensed under a CC that is too restrictive for hosting on commons - the cropping appears not to be hosted on wikipedia - the reviewer user contributionsappears to have been very inexperienced without any investigation as to his qualifications to review any copyrights and there is no evidence at all that the commons compatible license was ever applicable to this picture - I have contacted the photographer who confirms this - Youreallycan (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept as this has been reviewed, i.e. this file was found to be under a {{Cc-by-2.0}} license on 7 April 2008. CC licenses cannot be revoked. I've tagged the file description with {{Flickr-change-of-license}} to make this clear. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful ownership of uploader. Found in higher resolution at http://www.theteam1260.com/cheersquad/View.aspx?ID=303324; true source unknown. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The copyright status of this picture is indeed doubtful. AFBorchert (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No reason given that the sign text should be public domain or under a creative commons compatible license. 95.166.78.149 07:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not licensed with a PD or CC status. But is a sign like this a copyrightable work? --|EPO| da: 08:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you know a reason it wouldn't be, please say so. The text is long enough to be protected as a literary work, it is not one of the types of official government works that are exempt from protection according to §9 of the Danish copyright act and and §24 part 2 about artworks in public places is no help to us here. 95.166.78.149 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- To elaborate on the "long enough to be protected as a literary work"-thing, I am thinking in comparison with the 1951 For Whom the Bell Tolls supreme court ruling (U1951.725/3H). It was found that 5 short lines of Ole Restrup's 1941 translation of the famous John Donne poem were above the threshold. That was way better writing, sure, but also a shorter text (about 30 words were quoted and a few of those had been rewritten), and still relatively small things (one example given is translating Bell to Klokkerne (singular to plural)), were enough to raise the translation above the threshold. 95.166.78.149 14:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dansk: billedet har ikke nogen høj værk status, og kan vel heller ikke påberåbe sig nogen værk status.--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- To elaborate on the "long enough to be protected as a literary work"-thing, I am thinking in comparison with the 1951 For Whom the Bell Tolls supreme court ruling (U1951.725/3H). It was found that 5 short lines of Ole Restrup's 1941 translation of the famous John Donne poem were above the threshold. That was way better writing, sure, but also a shorter text (about 30 words were quoted and a few of those had been rewritten), and still relatively small things (one example given is translating Bell to Klokkerne (singular to plural)), were enough to raise the translation above the threshold. 95.166.78.149 14:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you know a reason it wouldn't be, please say so. The text is long enough to be protected as a literary work, it is not one of the types of official government works that are exempt from protection according to §9 of the Danish copyright act and and §24 part 2 about artworks in public places is no help to us here. 95.166.78.149 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark that applies to literary works on information plaques. As long as it cannot be shown that the text is in the public domain or under a free license, we cannot keep this picture. AFBorchert (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for buildings in Iceland. The sculptor of the statue, Alexander Stirling Calder, died in 1932 and the architect of the building, Guðjón Samúelsson, died in 1950. Therefore the image won't be free to use until 2021. See COM:FOP#Iceland and Category:Icelandic FOP cases. JD554 (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as nominated as we have no freedom of panorama in Iceland. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
_-_Doorsneden_van_de_toren.png){kind=link}
_-_Doorsneden_van_de_toren.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
too large a png to create a thumbnail, so I also uploaded a jpeg version Dedden (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
_-_Doorsneden_van_de_toren.png){kind=link}
Kept: This is no reason to delete this file as it is as original probably superior to the jpeg version. It is ok to keep both, one for having the original and one that can be used within the current limitations of the software (which hopefully change in the future). AFBorchert (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
_-_Doorsneden_van_de_toren.png){kind=link}
Previously deleted as a gif - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LalaHarDayal1294.gif&action=edit&redlink=1 Sitush (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is unlikely to be own work. A source is not given. Likewise we do not know abouts its first publication. Hence the public domain tag does not apply. AFBorchert (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be photo of unknown origin with some inscription I cannot read and a reference to a website of a political Palestinian movement. It is currently unused, without description, and a doubtful copyright status. AFBorchert (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
unused, flag association undisclosed Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused flag, no meaningful description, hence out of COM:SCOPE. AFBorchert (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo, the OTRS ticket is from the photographer, not from Lamborghini. —SpacemanSpiff 11:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Same opinion, delete.--Motopark (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as derived work of a copyrighted logo. AFBorchert (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Porsche logo, not released —SpacemanSpiff 11:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Porsche coat of arms is derived from the coat of arms of the former state of Württemberg and that of the city of Stuttgart. Both are in the public domain. The derivation in itself is below the threshold of originality. Hence, this coat of arms can be photographed without infringing a copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC) P.S. I've renamed this file to File:Hubcap with Porsche coat of arms 2010.JPG. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Derivative work. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This photograph is a derived work of a copyrighted card. To keep this we would need a permission by the copyright holder through OTRS. In case of minors, the written permission by the parents is required. See Commons:Email templates for a possible template of such a declaration. AFBorchert (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Just a normal penis, we have lots of them here on Commons so COM:SCOPE Huib talk Abigor @ meta 12:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
this people is not notable and this photo probably causes copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture > Out of scope. Lymantria (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
случайно загрузила не тот файл Viola arut (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader request and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No scope, fictional flag for World War 3. Fry1989 eh? 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No scope, fictional flag for World War 3. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No scope, fictional flag for World War 3. Fry1989 eh? 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No scope, fictional flag for a World War 3 scenario Fry1989 eh? 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No scope, fictional flag for a World War 3 scenario. Fry1989 eh? 21:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Photo taken in a private place. No evidence that the nude guy consents. 95.199.16.147 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Delete in accordance with COM:PEOPLE. Handcuffed (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree, a private place, probably best to delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
dubious own work, all of uploader's contributions at en.wiki are similar (low-res photos apparently taken from around the web) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary and irrelevent content. Misleading. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Misleading" is meaningless. It's in use, so it's obviously necessary and in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes; no legitimate reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Necessary (in use) and relevant content. Misleading deletion nomination. Tm (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the only thing that is misleading is calling it a picnic. It's clearly a barbeque. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason given. Good twins (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not educational (what does it illustrate, exactly? Sausages, as the category "Barbecued food" would indicate?); and no subject consent for private persons in what appears to be a private setting. Not unique; the de:wiki naturism article that it is used in has plenty of other images of nude persons in public settings. -- Phoebe (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is by definition educational as it is in use. We don't second-guess Wikimedia projects on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it doesn't look like a private place. Trycatch (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Used, not a private place. Yann (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Nude picnic.jpg 2nd nomination
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude sunbathing.jpg for some Commons sense. 95.199.16.147 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - File:Nude picnic 2.jpg, a photo from the same set, is seen in thumbnail at [5], which was in Feb 08, well before upload here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
deleted
Flickr source says: "Sometimes The Bikinis Come Off Particularly on the boat." So this was taken in a private place. Also, subject is not famous or anything, just a girl, image would have been deleted as "Commons is not for your vacation photos" if she had had some clothes on. 95.199.16.147 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this doesn't appear to have been taken on a boat to me, looks more like a lagoon. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree that it indeed appears to be a lagoon. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be an isolated place. I think the case could be made that there was an expectation of privacy, so it should be deleted in accordance with COM:PEOPLE. Handcuffed (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This is not offensive, seen worse on discovery channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.177.25 (talk • contribs)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo d'un modèle potentiellement mineur (image à caractère pédophile) 2.5.229.82 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Image clearly of a adult, as you could saw if you werent trying to dig and find images to play the pedhopile card. Or you have a preverted mind (be it of religious extremism or any other extremism) to see pedhopile in a clearly adult nude model. Tm (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There's not really any reason to think this young women is less than 18. And even if was the case, let's recall that underage nudity is not always a source of pedophilia (I'd also say there's some kind of perversion to think so). There are many examples of acceptable children nudity on Commons, especially when it comes to treat subjects like nudism, which is not a question of perversion nor pedophilia, or ethnographic subjects (yeah, let's not forget that nudity is a form of taboo in our occidental societies - and other societies like the arab-muslim world - but is considered differently by other cultures !). In this case, it's clearly an illustration of nudism. Therefore no problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:IKM2010 k173 RegionaleAbgrenzung 05 2010-klein.jpg, which has better quality. Emha (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Downscaled duplicate. Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wheel might be copyrighted, COM:PRP, no COM:FOP#France. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- What whould be copyrighted to whom ? Keep, it's a retaliation DR. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep
This nomination does seem motivated by battles elsewhere.Pieter, can you point to other discussion(s) where we have found ferris-wheels to be copyrighted?If so, then I'd be willing to take this nomination a bit more seriously. Otherwise I will just assume it is tit-for-tat game-playing.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to take this nomination at face value. I am not convinced that this image is a copyvio, but I will keep an open mind. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- In France, many things can be copyrighted. Commons has deleted many images of pyramids and of bridges. Even lighting can be copyrighted. These images show a mobile structure that is more dynamic and complicated than a pyramid or a straightforward suspension bridge. It is not acceptable that I was blocked for making this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to take this nomination at face value. I am not convinced that this image is a copyvio, but I will keep an open mind. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment ferry wheels are functional design, i.e. it's not copyrighted (it's also the reason why cars, trains, etc. are not copyrighted). Now concerning the light, it's simpler than the light of the eiffel tower that we regularly keep now since november of 2011 see Category:France FOP cases/kept --PierreSelim (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This photo is copyrighten Roseohioresident (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Obvious modern building, 70 years unlikely to have passed since architect's death Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nor File:Kbc-building-antwerpen.jpg and a zillion others. I don't believe it's a problem with the exception of the Atomium and the MAS museum (in Belgium) Ziyalistix (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in Belgium. So unless the architect died more than 70 years ago, gotta delete it. See FOP:Belgium.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you have some work to do then, most building in Category:Apartment buildings in Belgium are modern buildings, subcategories included. I wish you luck deleting them all. Ziyalistix (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, and starting here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, we may have to do it. There needs to be Commons:Deletion requests/Deletion of panoramas in Belgium... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you have some work to do then, most building in Category:Apartment buildings in Belgium are modern buildings, subcategories included. I wish you luck deleting them all. Ziyalistix (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Against deletion, FOP should be applied for 'modern art' objects/buildings. This apartment block does not seem a pice of modern art to me. There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder.. Michiel1972 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Stupid nomination. This is no "piece of art" from a known architect. Sonuwe (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not how it works. FOPA - or lack of it - applies to buildings regardless of whether they are "art" or not. Obviously these buildings were designed by someone and the copyright doesn't expire until 70 years after the death of the architect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you want an example of how this work, for comparison you can check this [6] or here(these aren't "art" either so same logic applies - even though it's two different countries)Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, at least the Belgium FOP definition on Commons should be defined more precise than it is now. I do read it as if it focuses on (modern) art and architecture in public space only. In my opnion that is als meant by that Belgium law. Michiel1972 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently that's not how FOPA is being currently interpreted, at least not by User:russavia (see above links). I don't know, I can sort of see the point - architecture, even crappy architecture, is still "art" so the definition applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, at least the Belgium FOP definition on Commons should be defined more precise than it is now. I do read it as if it focuses on (modern) art and architecture in public space only. In my opnion that is als meant by that Belgium law. Michiel1972 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Stupid nomination. This is no "piece of art" from a known architect. Sonuwe (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in Belgium. So unless the architect died more than 70 years ago, gotta delete it. See FOP:Belgium.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP#Belgium russavia (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
As there is FOP in the US for buildings only, things like toys, scale models, etc do attract copyright, and hence can't be hosted on Commons.
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 84.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 83.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 82.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 81.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 80.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 79.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 78.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 77.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 76.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 75.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 74.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 73.JPG
- File:Pitt Car Sci Mus 72.JPG
russavia (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as derived works of scale models which are possibly protected by copyright. For the latter please be referenced to Osment Models vs. Mike's Train House. Individual models could be in the public domain provided they are faithfully derived from architectural designs in the public domain that have been scaled down. This, however, is rarely the case. Even if the models are derived from real world architecture, it is not uncommon to change its design which causes the model to be copyrightable even if the original buildings are already in the public domain. The same is true for the general setup. Hence it can be pretty safely assumed that the photographed railway model setup is eligible for copyright. All these photographs are in consequence derived works where we do not have freedom of panorama. Hence, they have to be deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The text in the information plates is more than simple text, and is hence copyrightable, making this a derivative work of unfree text.
- File:New York by Piotrus 197.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 195.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 189.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 187.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 177.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 175.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 173.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 171.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 169.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 161.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 148.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 146.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 132.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 130.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 120.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 118.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 116.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 110.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 096.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 093.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 079.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 066.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 051.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 047.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 041.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 037.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 035.JPG
- File:New York by Piotrus 032.JPG
russavia (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I have no objection, but it would be nice if somebody with more time transferred the key parts of the description to the related images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 02:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Sculptural copyright violation. For sculptural artwork details, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jongno-Korea 2009 (cropped).jpg. Will remain copyrighted in the U.S. even if it falls public domain in South Korea. COM:URAA copyright restoration can be ignored if South Korea had commercial freedom of panorama.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Seoul centre 080.JPG
- File:Seoul centre 078.JPG
- File:Seoul centre 077.JPG
- File:Seoul centre 076.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per meta:copyright paranoia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- At Commons we have COM:PRP for very good reasons. See also the introductory notes at Category:Statue of Admiral Yi Sun-sin at Gwanghwamun Plaza. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus why don't you try to lobby the Korean legislature to remove non-commercial restriction on Article 35(2) of their law, instead of endlessly ranting on Wikimedia sites? Your claim of copyright paranoia has basis: French government opposes Wikimedia movement, so that only non-commercial freedom of panorama was introduced there in October 2016. Russian Wikimedians seem aware that monuments cannot be freely photographed because there should be respect to sculptors' copyrights, hence they accept that only architectural FOP was introduced in October 2014. It may be lucky if Korea follows the path of Belgium at removing restrictions for public space works, just like what Belgium did in July 2016 with the help of Wikimedia Belgium chapter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In File:Seoul centre 076.JPG, can be applied DM? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow how can it be de minjmis if the monument itself occupies more than 70% of the image right at the center? Not DM per my review. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we can both agree that it would be best for Korean gov't to change the law. I don't know what has the Korean chapter done about it. I'd love to know. @-revi/@Revi (WMF) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm South Korean, So I'm interested this and I think I can talk about this. I hope that South Korea allows commercial FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted 3, kept 1 because the statue is unavoidably there but is not the intended focus of the photograph which is a cityscape photograph. Undelete in 2064. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bomispedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Bomispooja25.jpg
- File:Bomispooja24.jpg
- File:Bomispooja21.jpg
- File:Bomispooja19.PNG
- File:Bomispooja20.jpg
- File:Bomispooja1.jpg
- File:Bomispooja18.jpg
- File:Bomispooja17.jpg
- File:Bomispooja14.jpg
- File:Bomispooja16.jpg
- File:Bomispooja12.jpg
- File:Bomispooja11.jpg
- File:Bomispooja13.jpg
- File:Bomispooja10.jpg
- File:Bomispooja9.jpg
- File:Bomispooja8.jpg
- File:Bomispooja6.jpg
- File:Bomispooja7.jpg
- File:Bomispooja5.jpg
- File:Bomispooja2.jpg
- File:Bomispooja3.jpg
- File:Bomispooja4.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj25.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj24.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj26.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj23.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj22.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj20.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj21.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj19.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj18.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj17.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj16.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj15.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj13.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj14.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj12.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj11.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj7.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj3.jpg
- File:Bomisdheeraj1.jpg
- File:Bomis22.jpg
- File:Bomis13.jpg
- File:Bomis15.jpg
- File:Bomis14.jpg
- File:Bomis12.jpg
- File:Bomis11.jpg
- File:Bomis10.jpg
- File:Bomis9.jpg
- File:Bomis8.jpg
- File:Bomis7.jpg
- File:Bomis5.jpg
- File:Bomis6.jpg
- File:Bomis4.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, jumping purple thing Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The uploader does not seem to be the author according to the two last contributions. Leyo 12:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
dubious own work, all of uploader's contributions at en.wiki are similar (low-res photos apparently taken from around the web) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
this image is not free in the united states, even if it is free in australia. john coleman started playing in 1949. for the image to be public domain in the united states, it needs to have been published 50 years before 1996 (uraa date) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Brendan Jones holds copyright on his flag designs, I do not believe he has given free use permission. Fry1989 eh? 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
useless... // Bubel (dyskusja) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any scope for this file? It appears to be the Spanish flag with the arms altered, but with no desription, it doesn't really have a place in the Special or Fictional Flags category. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the date of the author's death, the only way this is free in Australia is if it is a "Commonwealth or State government owned photograph" or "engraving". This does not appear to fit that definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This image maybe come from a post #299 of that forum and may not be released in CC-BY-SA 3.0. 石 (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is a serial violator of our policies. The border may be his own work but the underlying image is not. Sitush (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, apart from the border. The uploader is a serial violator of our policies. Sitush (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Source is web but it's not indicated to verify license. Elisardojm (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Pasternak moved to the UK in 1921. This painting in 1927 was likely done in the UK. PD-Ukraine was never valid. Likely undelete in 2015 under PD-old russavia (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Painting done in 1920, so PD-RusEmpire doesn't apply. Pasternak died in 1945, so undelete in 2015 under PD-Russia-2008 russavia (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The uploader does not seem to be the author according to the two last contributions. Leyo 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted card design. Teemeah (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be own work (was the photographer alive in 1910?!), seem more like a scan. P199 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, enlarged or scanned picture. The person in this picture was an actor who died in 2006 and he was 41 years old. In this picture he seems to be in his thirties. The date in the file description also doesn't make any sense, and this was the only picture uploaded by that user. Giro720 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This picture was posted by me, his son, no matter how old was him, I think is a good picture of him, so I don't want it to be deleted. There is no rule about put a younger picture of someone. This picture is him in the 90's, so what? It's still a good picture, remind me his best times. Luiquesp
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"author = public"? Who is the author? Where did he release it under a free license? Liliana-60 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. It is unlikely that the uploader is the author. The license is incorrect unless the real author died within 3 years after making the picture, which cannot be said unless the real author is provided. Therefore this cannot be in the public domain. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
this people is not notable Reality006 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW, photo of a presumably copyrighted poster. January (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a schoolteacher [7]. No permission and out of scope. January (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:ETTRlogo2.jpg, a copyrighted image. ORTS message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
scaled down dupl. of File:Maxsignature.JPG McZusatz (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarrabezolles is dead in 1971, no FoP in France. 90.61.238.168 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
_-_%C3%89glise02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_%C3%89glise02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sarrabezolles is dead in 1971, no FoP in France. 90.61.238.168 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
_-_Église02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
_-_Église02.jpg){kind=link}
Sarrabezolles is dead in 1971, no FoP in France. 90.61.238.168 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncategorized files with an advertisement instead of a description.
- File:A01-3D-1-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A12-Edit-BEZ - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A14-3dilne-Edit-Edit - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A14-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A13-3dilne-Edit - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A13-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A12-Edit - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A06-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A07-3dilne-Edit2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A12-3D-3 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A12-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A06-3dilne-Edit-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A05-3D-3 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A07-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A05-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A02-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A05-3D-1 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A02-3D-1 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A01-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:A01-3D-1 - 3 Dílné obrazy v různých variantách provedení.jpg
- File:L101-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L101-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L099-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L103-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L095-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L096-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L089-4D - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L103-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L090-4D - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L092-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L097-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L099-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L097-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L092-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L096-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L093-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L088-D5-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L095-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L094-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L094-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L084-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L088-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L093-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L087-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L086-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L086-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L087-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L085-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L084-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L085-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátně čí fotopapíru.jpg
- File:L081-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L082-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L081-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L080-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L080-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L077-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L077-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L076-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L075-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L076-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L075-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L066-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L068-3D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L067-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L068-3D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L067-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L066-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L055-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L055-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L051-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L051-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L047-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L047-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L045-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L045-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L043-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L043-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L041-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L041-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L040-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L040-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L033-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L026-4D-2 - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L033-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L026-4D-1 - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L023-4D - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L022-3D-3 - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L022-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L022-3D-1 - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L021-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L021-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L006-5D-1 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L006-5D-2 - 5 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L006-4D-1 - 4 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L003-3D-2 - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L003-3D - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:L002-3D - 3 Dílné obrazy na plátno nebo fotopapír.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír DSC01740.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C31.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C30.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C29.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C27.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C26.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C25.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C24.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C23.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C22.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C21.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C20.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C19.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C18.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C17.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C16.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C15.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C14.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C11.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C13.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C12.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C10.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C09.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C08.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C05.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C06.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C07.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C03.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C04.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C02.jpg
- File:Moderní černobílé obrazy na plátno a fotopapír C01.jpg
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvios, all lacking license information. I have already tagged the user's other uploads.
- File:Bennylock.jpg
- File:Bennyyahoo.jpg
- File:Benny我猜.jpg
- File:Benny棒球.jpg
- File:Benny中華電信.jpg
- File:Benny鎖清秋.jpg
- File:小小彬.jpg
Savhñ 18:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Metadata says "© Barry Selby Photography. All Rights Reserved". License at Flickr is CC BY-NC-SA, since there is no license review system at enwp where it was originally uploaded there is no proof that the claimed CC-BY license was valid. January (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just checked on the photo page on Flickr and the license is not free enough to be uploaded on Commons. I agree with the fact that the image should be deleted.
Amzer (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
deemed useless by low-res Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete matanya • talk 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Poor-quality photo. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Badseed talk 23:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
71.17.89.80 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Because its me, and I have much better photos to use. 71.17.89.80 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sometimes we will delete images if the quality is particularly poor and we have alternatives (although arguably this is a NXNE performance at Lee's Palace, so a few extra images of Jason Plumb elsewhere aren't necessarily a full alternative to this one). At a minimum, however, you would need to upload these "much better photos" of you. In the meantime, this image should be kept. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I was listening to the Waltons' first album this morning. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Used, and no other alternative. If there are better 'and' free images, please upload. Badseed talk 23:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate RmSilva pode falar! 14:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Duplicate of what? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No obvious duplicate. Badseed talk 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sitush as no permission (no permission since). Am I missing something here? No permission for what? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- On image talk page, Sitush claims it's a copyvio from [8]. That's definitely not the same image. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It's not the same image, no copyvio established. Badseed talk 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No way is this "own work". The uploader has a problematic history here & in this instance the "own work" is the border, not the underlying image. Sitush (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- COMMENTS: Hey Sitush! What Problem? Dont say so, I am still alive. Kindly see its description page once again which speaks itself - "An image created electronically by Krantmlverma from a Poster of Prof.Rajendra Singh late R.S.S. Chief (Sarsanghchalak) circulated worldwide by the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh amongst its Swayamsewaks." Any more information? Please dont be biused, I am a responsible person. Krantmlverma (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW of poster -- no permission . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is a serial violator of our policies. The border may be his own work but the underlying image is not. Sitush (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- UPLOADER'S COMMENTS: See its description once again. Source, author information and license permission etc have been incorporated in the file's page. Please review it and FIX the captioned image. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. See [9]. Derivative work of non permanently installed art in any case. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lingua_Madre,_Fiera_del_Libro_2005.jpeg){kind=link}
- I created the file twice by mistake, it's OK for me to delete one of the two. (In general I uploaded from Flickr files relevant to the Turin Book Fair to use them in this Wikipedia article and related ones). --Andrea.gf (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW of sculpture . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sarrabezolles is dead in 1971, no FoP in France. 90.61.238.168 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Claim of "own work" is not supported by anything. 95.199.16.147 23:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- We don't usually require that own work be substantiated unless there is reasonable doubt (eg a high-quality photo of a celebrity, or it appeared elsewhere). Keep unless you have actual evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, not seeing any evidence for baseless claims by nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cirt, I believe this may look familiar... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No camera data, photos of same subjects hosted elsewhere -> obvious copyvio grabbed off the internet. --JN466 03:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- In determining how one will close these discussions, admins such as myself will look at all arguments. You have stated that this is hosted elsewhere, so is therefore a copyvio. Can you please provide links to where this hosted, and where it is likely taken from, in your opinion. russavia (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- See the link in my comment above, for an example of where images of the same subjects (per Jayen466) are hosted elsewhere. I can assure you that the image under discussion is also hosted elsewhere, but I don't think it is necessary or useful to provide links. The idea of "assuming good faith" does not absolve the WMF of its responsibilities with regard to copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see the link there. What I am asking for is this photo. If you have the link, dump it here and admins such as myself can peruse it and act accordingly. russavia (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you that the image is hosted elsewhere. In several places, actually, but I'm not going to provide links to any of those places (and I suggest that no one else does so either). I have already shown that the same persons pictured appear in other images hosted at porn sites. A user who has made no other contributions on any other WMF project and who has uploaded an image with no EXIF data is claiming that an image widely posted on the internet is their own work. The closing admin will have to decide if they choose to believe that user over me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I found the picture on various places. But i found not a single copy that could be older then this version. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you that the image is hosted elsewhere. In several places, actually, but I'm not going to provide links to any of those places (and I suggest that no one else does so either). I have already shown that the same persons pictured appear in other images hosted at porn sites. A user who has made no other contributions on any other WMF project and who has uploaded an image with no EXIF data is claiming that an image widely posted on the internet is their own work. The closing admin will have to decide if they choose to believe that user over me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see the link there. What I am asking for is this photo. If you have the link, dump it here and admins such as myself can peruse it and act accordingly. russavia (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- See the link in my comment above, for an example of where images of the same subjects (per Jayen466) are hosted elsewhere. I can assure you that the image under discussion is also hosted elsewhere, but I don't think it is necessary or useful to provide links. The idea of "assuming good faith" does not absolve the WMF of its responsibilities with regard to copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- In determining how one will close these discussions, admins such as myself will look at all arguments. You have stated that this is hosted elsewhere, so is therefore a copyvio. Can you please provide links to where this hosted, and where it is likely taken from, in your opinion. russavia (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The link provided by Delicious Carbuncle is raising concerns for me, however other sites seems to credit the uploader here (and porn site are not known for respecting copyrights). In the end I don't know, but either keep or delete I won't be disappointed, it's tricky to be certain in this case. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (COM:PRP); not convincing "license". --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm AGF on license, no other reason to delete. --Claritas (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No EXIF data and user's only upload (so maybe copyvio). Also see Commons:Country specific consent requirements, the photo is German so the subjects need to give consent to its publication. There is no evidence that they have done this. This has nothing to do with how they are dressed! --Simonxag (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not an own work; this copy of the arms has been on other Wikis since 2010 http://sg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Taranto-Stemma.png User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note, it is a modification of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Taranto-Stemma.png, which was deleted several years ago due to copyright issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, del. an DE Nolispanmo 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm... isn't this related to Macromedia Hochschule für Medien und Kommunikation, see http://www.macromedia.de/? Why do you think that this is out of scope when an article at de-wp exists for it? BTW, this includes also the duplicate logos at File:Akademie logo rgb web.jpg and File:Akademie Logo.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- hmm - i used a wrong reason. This file has been used in de:Macromedia Akademie. But it is not the official logo. So it is useless (and unused), like the other ones u found. Greetings. --Nolispanmo 09:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The subject of the image died in 1927. The uploader certainly did not take the photograph and has a highly problematic history here at Commons Sitush (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: we have no idea when this was first published, who the author was etc - impossible to determine whether it falls with the PD-India scope. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status; we have no idea when this was published FASTILY (TALK) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly original enough not to qualify as pd-text. IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Cleary doesn't meet any threshold of originality. --92.229.217.137vıכıaяפ ᚨ 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)- Except it clearly does. What part of this looks like "simple text" to you? The O with a pentagram in the middle, the H with the hanging upside-down crucifix, or S with the snake's head? Care to explain how any of those elements are "simple text"? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Die rein handwerkliche Leistung, die jedermann mit durchschnittlichen Fähigkeiten ebenso zustande brächte, mag sie auch auf anerkennenswertem Fleiß und auf solidem Können beruhen, liege außerhalb der Schutzfähigkeit" - LG Berlin, Az 16 O 72/86, see also OLG Hamburg, Az 5 U 137/03, GRUR 2005, 410. Short and painful: Any art that could be recreated by an average person without special abilities in arts and without special efforts is not worthy of protection. The term applying here is not "simple text", but "simple geometric shapes", you must've overread that part. --92.229.217.137 10:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Care to explain how an O with a pentagram in it and a spike at the bottom, or an S with the head of a serpent and a spike at the bottom, and the whole thing looking like it was written in blood, constitute "simple geometric shapes"? --IllaZilla (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You like to comprehend only certain parts of text, don't you? They are "simple" as in "my neighbor's five year old kid could recreate that", not as in "the shape has only 8 vertices". It needs no effort to recreate this logo, so it is not eligible for protection, see above. Furthermore, you've got an incredible imagination; what you interpret as "written in blood" are most likely artifacts from the first vectorization process as the original drawing was done in marker and rather small in size, see, for example, the snake's head. --92.229.217.137 10:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the threshold of originality is "simple geometric shapes and/or text", not "my neighbor's five year old kid could recreate that". "Originality" ≠ "could not be duplicated". See Commons:Threshold of originality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality. By your standard all of the artistic works of Daniel Johnston would be ineligible for copyright just because they look like little kids' drawings, but clearly that's not the reality. And the look of the lines is most likely not due to vectorization; this is a metal band's logo, when they look like blood or goop it's almost always intentional. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You like to comprehend only certain parts of text, don't you? They are "simple" as in "my neighbor's five year old kid could recreate that", not as in "the shape has only 8 vertices". It needs no effort to recreate this logo, so it is not eligible for protection, see above. Furthermore, you've got an incredible imagination; what you interpret as "written in blood" are most likely artifacts from the first vectorization process as the original drawing was done in marker and rather small in size, see, for example, the snake's head. --92.229.217.137 10:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Care to explain how an O with a pentagram in it and a spike at the bottom, or an S with the head of a serpent and a spike at the bottom, and the whole thing looking like it was written in blood, constitute "simple geometric shapes"? --IllaZilla (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Die rein handwerkliche Leistung, die jedermann mit durchschnittlichen Fähigkeiten ebenso zustande brächte, mag sie auch auf anerkennenswertem Fleiß und auf solidem Können beruhen, liege außerhalb der Schutzfähigkeit" - LG Berlin, Az 16 O 72/86, see also OLG Hamburg, Az 5 U 137/03, GRUR 2005, 410. Short and painful: Any art that could be recreated by an average person without special abilities in arts and without special efforts is not worthy of protection. The term applying here is not "simple text", but "simple geometric shapes", you must've overread that part. --92.229.217.137 10:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Except it clearly does. What part of this looks like "simple text" to you? The O with a pentagram in the middle, the H with the hanging upside-down crucifix, or S with the snake's head? Care to explain how any of those elements are "simple text"? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Originally eligible for protection; now PD because the artist is longer than 70 years dead.
- Regarding Daniel Johnston: German law distincts between "real art" (don't know how to call it) and "Gebrauchsgrafik" ("applied art"). The works of Daniel Johnston, similar to the works of other "simple" artists, are/were therefore copyrighted. A bandlogo is applied art, as it is used as a representation of the band, and doesn't stand for its own. If I look at the images on Commons:Threshold of originality#United States I see several examples which could IMHO be compared to the bandlogo.
- I need a little time reading en:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. to see if any of these decisions is applyable to our case regarding court interpretations of modicum of originality.
- Vectorization artifacts: You betcha. $100 from the loser to the WMF? :)
- vıכıaяפ ᚨ 09:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're on! :) I'm curious what you think of my point below, that the Commons:Licensing policy only permits PD images that are PD in both the country of origin and the U.S. It's my belief that in the U.S. this image would pass the threshold to not be considered pd-text. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, your point is what COM:L says: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I never challenged this, our only point of conflict is the question whether the logo is eligible for copyright in the US or not. vıכıaяפ ᚨ 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with your prior comment that the images at Commons:Threshold of originality#United States are comparable to the band logo: those images contain only simple text or script, or public domain shapes (fleur de lis, yin/yang). To my eye this logo is much more akin to this or this, other band logos which are considered non-free and have a similar level of originality to the Ophis logo. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, your point is what COM:L says: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I never challenged this, our only point of conflict is the question whether the logo is eligible for copyright in the US or not. vıכıaяפ ᚨ 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're on! :) I'm curious what you think of my point below, that the Commons:Licensing policy only permits PD images that are PD in both the country of origin and the U.S. It's my belief that in the U.S. this image would pass the threshold to not be considered pd-text. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- IllaZilla, i partially agree with your arguments, but more i do with viciargs. You should also not forget, that he has the point that beats all - the quote of the OLG Hamburg. If you refer to that, everybody (at least who understands german) will totally agree, that this logo is not worth of protection (according to the law !!!, maybe not to everybodys intention!!!). So therefore KEEP --Trollhead (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand German, and running the text through Google Translator didn't help much. Commons:Licensing says that public domain images are only accepted if they are "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Per this policy, it would not be enough that this image would be considered PD in Germany; it would have to be considered PD in the United States as well (since that's where the Wikimedia Foundation's servers reside). So the pertinent question is: Would this be considered public domain in the U.S.? My opinion is no, that it passes the threshold of originality per the reasons I've given above. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: keep? FASTILY (TALK) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gobierno de España
[edit]This is a similar case to Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites, in that the website states "This information may be used in part or fully with no obligation to acknowledge the source." It doesn't expressly allow commercial use, which is required for hosting on Commons. Perhaps a Spanish-speaking editor can get an express release from the Ministry, but until then files should be deleted under our precautionary principle.
- File:ACañete.jpg
- File:Alejandro Alvargonzález.jpg
- File:Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba tras la reunión de la Comisión Delegada del Gobierno para situaciones de crisis.jpg
- File:Ana Pastor 2012.jpg
- File:Antoni Martí (2011).jpg
- File:Antonio Camacho Vizcaíno.jpg
- File:Cristobal Montoro.JPG
- File:Cándido Conde-Pumpido (2011).jpg
- File:Fatima Bañez.JPG
- File:Fernando García Sánchez.jpg
- File:Jorge Fernández Díaz.JPG
- File:Jose Ignacio Wert.JPG
- File:José Manuel Soria.JPG
- File:Juan Carlos I2012.jpg
- File:Luisa Fernanda Rudi.png
- File:Primer Gobierno Rajoy.jpg
- File:Rajoy and Lee Myung-bak, March 2012.jpg
- File:Rajoy con Albert Fabra.jpg
- File:Rajoy con José Antonio Monago.jpg
- File:Rajoy con la Copa Davis.jpg
- File:Rajoy con Luisa Fernanda Rudi.jpg
- File:Rajoy con Yolanda Barcina.jpg
- File:Rajoy y Humala en Madrid.jpg
- File:Rajoy y Sarkozy en Madrid - On Sarkozy cropped.jpg
- File:Rajoy y Sarkozy en Madrid -detail.jpg
- File:Rajoy y Sarkozy en Madrid.jpg
- File:Rajoy y Van Rompuy en Madrid.jpg
- File:Rosa Aguilar (2011).jpg
- File:Sorayasaezsantamaria.jpg
- File:Spanish P. M. Rajoy with the Spanish Davis Cup national team, winner of the 2011 Davis Cup.jpg
- File:Transcend001.jpg
- File:Transcend002.jpg
- File:Wert.jpg
- File:Yolanda Barcina.png
- File:Zapatero 2011.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/es_AvisoLegal.htm gives sufficient permission; of course commercial use is allowed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Este trabajo ha sido creado por la Presidencia del Gobierno de España. Este organismo permite, según La Moncloa usarlo para cualquier fin ya que los contenidos, organización y elección de enlaces de las páginas de la-moncloa.es han sido seleccionados y/o coordinados por la Secretaría de Estado de Comunicación del Ministerio de Presidencia. Esta información puede ser utilizada en parte o en su integridad sin necesidad de citar fuentes. (Aviso legal) Es por ello que este trabajo está en el dominio público.Takashi kurita (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Please, read this note about permission of the official page: [10]--NACLE2 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have sent a question to the General Division of the Intellectual Property of the Government of Spain. Can we delay this deletion request until we have an offcial answer?. Thank you.--Marctaltor (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Marctaltor, I don't think it will be a problem to delay the DR being closed whilst we wait to see if you get a response from the relevant govt dept. If you get any response, be sure send it to OTRS and advise us here of an update. russavia (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Marctaltor, current licence is a bit ambiguous. Let's wait till we receive an official response. By the way, it would be a great idea asking them if they are willing to license CC-BY-SA to this site, to do the same with other sites that are managed by Ministeries and Agencies of the Spanish Government.--Dura-Ace (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- CC-BY-SA is much more restrictive than the permission they already gave. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- How can an irrevocable license be more restrictive then a permission that is not clearly free for commercial reuse and not revocable? I.e. it is not clear if we can still allow people to reuse from Commons if in future lamoncloa change their terms and not longer allow reusing, or if they remove content and stop offering that content under said conditions. --Martin H. (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- CC-BY-SA is much more restrictive than the permission they already gave. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - La Moncloa permits free use of the images. Anyway, General Division of the Intellectual Property of the Government of Spain (Ministry of Culture) is not the best place to ask. I know well Spanish Governmet (actually, I do work for it). Better ask (if you consider it necessary---I think is clear enough) to the Secretary of Communication in the Ministry of the Presidency. /Cvbr (User talk:Cvbr) 10:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It has been three months and we have had no action here. The given permission says noting about derivative works or commercial use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No clear evidence of permission. Unless we have written/textual evidence explicitly permitting the use of these files under a Commons-compatiable license, we cannot host these files on Commons. -FASTILYs (TALK) 02:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader has requested for deletion at my talk page saying that they're not sure about publication date, I prefered to open a DR so someone might be able to help. ■ MMXX talk 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image when I was pretty a newbie and now I want it to be deleted. Thanks AMERICOPHILE 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use, license is irrevocable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The creator is unknown, hence wrong license Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- "In the following cases images fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16): 1) Photographic or cinematographic works. ..." No doubt the photo has been taken before the Revolution, hence is in PD. Speedy keep --Z 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Has it ever been published?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep publicity photo -> published; copyright expired. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted.
Files uploaded by TF Kolkata (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)