Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The Flickr account is listed as Flickrwashing. Ralgis 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Image copyvio from http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.273884152702692.64653.183452475079194&type=1#!/photo.php?fbid=293718914052549&set=a.273884152702692.64653.183452475079194&type=3&theater. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This image is from a questionable source http://www.erb.org/md/news/201005.html". 石 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{speedydelete|image de mauvaise qualité : faible contraste}} Cafedelyon (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Deleted low quality duplicate. --Foroa (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as dupe by Foroa. Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{speedydelete|doublon}} Cafedelyon (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Deleted, please use {{Duplicate|File:Jeune fille aux champs (Evariste Carpentier).jpg}} in stead. --Foroa (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as dupe by Foroa. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per this request on COM:AN/B for violation of personality rights. --Túrelio (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment The Flickr user's own comment "I was standing fairly close to them, and didn't want them to notice me as I photographed them" suggests that they didn't notice him photographing and that he probably didn't ask them afterwards. I don't see any malignant/bad intention on behalf of the photographer, as he even changed the original — possibly demeaning — image caption on Flickr. Nevertheless, such a shot with the overall connotation "Childhood Obesity" clearly has the potential to damage the reputation of the depicted persons. --Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete for me that image clearly falls where I have doubt on the consent of the subject. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)- Delete, subject consent unlikely. --Avenue (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: personal rights Julo (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
EXIF information credits this photo as FOTO FRANCISCO SANTOS. We would need permission from them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, uploader uploaded files from various photographers and agencies, always with the wrong information that the photo is own work. Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. No educational value russavia (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - A.Savin 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a newspaper, so PD-Australia doesn't apply here Liliana-60 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong picture, not usable, please delete JastroGer (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep « not more used » isn't a good reason for deletion. - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Self Promotion Zhxy 519 (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of videogame Resident Evil 5, copyright CAPCOM Ileana n (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've marked the file as a copyvio. It is a screenshot of a copyrighted video game and fair use is not asserted. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Camp chantier bénévole à Argy pour la restauration du patrimoine avec l'association le Club du Vieux Manoir.jpg
[edit]
Pas de droit d'auteur, mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: same image found in http://www.clubduvieuxmanoir.fr/en-direct-de-nos-chantiers/association Sreejith K (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.concellodelousame.com/situacio/hidrogra/hidrogra.html . HombreDHojalata.talk 08:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.concellodelousame.com/patrimon/arquit_r/lesende/lesende.html . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.concellodelousame.com/patrimon/arquit_r/vilacoba/vilacoba.html . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.concellodelousame.com/patrimon/arquit_r/fruime/fruime.html . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. From http://www.fundamentalweb.com.ar/identidad-68-premium.html Andres Rojas (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible license laundering. Ralgis 02:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible license laundering. Ralgis 02:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible license laundering. Ralgis 02:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
N appears to be planar (should be tetrahedral with a missing vertex)--at best this diagam is an unusual perspective that is needlessly misleading. File:Glycine-3D-balls.png has it clearly correct. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The chemical structure is incorrect and the file is unused Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As much as I would LOVE to have the Malaysian coat of arms here, this version (from Wikipedia English according to the source) has been deleted many times as non-free, so I don't think it can stay, We need a truly independent freely made version for it to be accepted on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 01:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK just do it. I don't care much about Malaysia or Malaysian. If they don't have a free coat of arms, nobody knows about their country. Dammio (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Licensing issues User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work"; looks like a commercial promo shot. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work"; looks like a commercial promo shot. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. From http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2010/11/29/spains-repsol-eyes-investments-in-iraqi-kurdistan/ Andres Rojas (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused user upload of self-image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a personal image. Not in use. And xml horridly broken russavia (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean as "horridly broken": do you assert that there is an error in XML syntax or that the code does not conform to the DTD? If the former, then show the error please. If the latter, then a large part of Commons' SVGs have non-standard attributes, and nobody cares. BTW Firefox perfectly displays http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Pavillon_marchant_France_Roi.svg , I do not know what means "a personal image", but I see no reasons to delete this. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Inferior tiny version of File:Flag of Belgium (civil).svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiny version of File:Flag of Latvia.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Flag of Brazil.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 20:12, 23 May 2012 (U
I want to delete this image but i don't know how to do it.
Quisiera eliminar esta imagen pero no sé cómo hacerlo.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edv2 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiny scaled down dupe of File:Flag of South Africa 1928-1994.svg Fry1989 eh? 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Italy (1861-1946).svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 20:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Japan.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope and possible copyvio. Trijnsteltalk 21:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Poster, delete --Motopark (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing seems to be discernible from this image. Image not used in any way and unlikely to be used in future. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self-images Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Problème droits d'auteur et mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Problème droit d'auteur et mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pas de droit d'auteur et mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
pas de droit d'auteur mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pas de droit d'auteur, mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pas de droit d'auteur, mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Pas de droit d'auteur, mauvaise licence Cyrielle.Pruvot (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Idh0854 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: NC-BY-ND; 서비스를 이용함으로써 얻은 사이트 또는 타인의 지적재산권을 사이트 또는 타인의 사전 승낙 없이 복제, 송신, 출판, 배포, 방송 기타방법에 의하여 영리목적으로 이용하거나 제3자에게 이용하게 하여서는 아니 된다|source=http://www.goupp.org/kor/intro/logo.php Sreejith K (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The terms quoted above are indeed unfree, but the question is whether the logo is copyrightable in the first place. COM:TOO has no entry for Korea. The logo also exists as JPG at File:Logo of the Unified Progressive Party.jpg, so this applies to that file too. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Whilst the uploader can own the video, the underlying work, that being the music and lyrics, are not own by the uploader, therefore it is a derivative work. russavia (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is something performed in public place. There are other things recorded aside from it. Quahadi Añtó 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
copyvio of http://www.obsitnik.com/images/template/obsitnik.jpg Holyoke, mass (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Previously published at http://onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/meet-steve-obsitnik-republican-congressional-candidate/. An OTRS ticket is required. Diannaa (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
albums covers
- File:Gloria10.jpg
- File:Una rosa blu deluxe edition.jpg
- File:Una rosa blu.jpg
- File:De pelos!.jpg
- File:Si me llevas contigo.jpg
- File:Mas turbada.jpg
Ralgis 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Jehuslap
[edit]- File:9 Impresion Digital.jpg
- File:8 Campañas.jpg
- File:7 Pulseras.jpg
- File:5 Bebidas.jpg
- File:4 Oficina.jpg
- File:6 Piel.jpg
- File:3 Oficina.jpg
- File:10 Otros.jpg
- File:2 Oficina.jpg
- File:1 Lapiceros.jpg
- File:Logo Ideas Publicidad.jpg
- File:Invierno 2012 Ideas Publicidad.jpg
Promotional. Looks like pages from a catalog. May be copyright issues as well. – JBarta (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, out of Commons' scope. Not realistically useable for educational purposes. Savhñ 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
These images are used on es:WP in an article that has been tagged for deletion as an advertisment. – JBarta (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Ralgis 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I checked the website and it is says all rights reserved; where is the proof that this image is under a FAL? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom High Contrast (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Falsches Foto Unterillertaler (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. Source: www.forotransportes.com Andres Rojas (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
From http://www.ucipmdp.com.ar/administrador/lib/noticias/imagenes/1323176453_ferrobaires.jpg Andres Rojas (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- No hay violación, es mas ni se consiguio en esa pagina. --Mega-buses (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think the logo meets the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A probable copyvio. Timestamp there is of an earlier date than that of upload. License on the blog is CC-BY-NC-ND, i.e., incompatible. Lovy Singhal (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a non-free non-de minimis logo. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Google maps background). Use OpenStreetMap for instead. Sinopitt (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Google maps background). Use OpenStreetMap for instead. Sinopitt (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Corrupt/invalid SVG file. Not in use. Not likely to be in scope russavia (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The xml on this file looks horribly (or horridly) broken. In its current state it is unusable for educational content. russavia (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The xml on this file looks horribly (or horridly) broken. In its current state it is unusable for educational content. russavia (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a collage of photos not necessarily created by the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image, plus we already have a collection of Barcodes Mys 721tx (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 23#File:Conrad Hilton Hall, Loyola Marymount University.jpg; uploader is not to be trusted in light of likely copyvios. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This image contains various copyrighted brands.
- For example: w:File:Hongkongtopbrandlogo2.png, which only a fair use on en.WP.-- 石 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This a logo of DSC company.
-- 石 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No description. It is unclear what is depicted in this photograph. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This image contains various copyrighted brands.
- For example: w:File:Hongkongtopbrandlogo2.png, which only a fair use on en.WP.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Our awards.JPG --石 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This image contains company logo of DSC. 石 (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubt this logo is from before 1923. Would like to see some sort of proof/rationale. – JBarta (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Official symbol. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Looking in the Official webpage of the goverment institution (https://www.xunta.gal/aviso-legal-do-portal-da-xunta), the content of this portal can be reused within two conditions:
Queda prohibida en calquera circunstancia a desnaturalización do contido da información.(It is forbiden to unnaturalized the content under any cirunstances) O usuario queda obrigado a citar a fonte dos documentos obxecto da reutilización. (The user should cite the source of the document that is going to be reused)
- It seems that we meet the conditions here. --Lathir (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first term here makes me think this is essentially a Non-Derivatives licence, which is not free and so would have to be deleted. James F. (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Music from 1907, original lyrics from 1890. It's PD-Old.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The first term here makes me think this is essentially a Non-Derivatives licence, which is not free and so would have to be deleted. James F. (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Source of the file? Who did perform it? License unlikely. PRP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This appears to be a screenshot but its hardly discernible and doubtful if it can be used. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible derivative work: the sole object of the picture is to show a protected design (iPhones). Eusebius (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this that famous textile to have a map on commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work"; looks like a commercial promot shot. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work"; looks like a commercial promo shot. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This page contains a permission for File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg. However, the file was removed because the permission was insufficient: the permission appears to apply only to Wikipedia. I assume that this means that there is no need to keep this page around.
Also note the licence violation on this page itself. The version history tells that this was "copied from en.wikipedia", but there is no link or anything to the original source on Wikipedia, and the old page history hasn't been copied over.. Thus, there is no way to find the authors of the original Wikipedia page, so the Commons page violates the attribution requirements of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licences. Also, it is not clear if the e-mails were licensed as GFDL or CC-BY-SA in the first place. Stefan4 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A copyrightable logo. Does the uploader really have the rights to release this logo under a free license? No evidence of that, and it's not in use anywhere (and not likely to be; I've just deleted the only page where it was used, and that for spamming), so it's also out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imasge is clearly a magazine scan. No credible claim to be the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I seem to think there may be no FOP in France. Chesdovi (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
does this refer to http://www.linkedin.com/pub/praneet-wadge/17/58b/b90 or any other non-notable person? unused image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative image of what is presumably copyrighted text. Because it relates to Terry Fox, I racked my brain trying to come up with a rationale as to why it should be kept, but I couldn't come up with anything. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No freedom of panorama in France. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks more complex than the Edge logo, which was found to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope (see User:Yvan Gaulin), but might be relevant: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Yvan+Gaulin. Trijnsteltalk 19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this image really free to use? It is a relevant image though, see w:fr:Bruno Fecteau. Trijnsteltalk 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- [...] Yes. [...] Tel que je l'ai connu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.17.41 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As the original painting (?) is likely still copyrighted and as there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption in France, this photo is a derivative, which violates the copyright of the painter. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Raoul Lamourdedieu is dead in 1953. No FoP in France. 82.124.112.36 21:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Raoul Lamourdedieu is dead in 1953. No FoP in France. 82.124.112.36 21:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
File is wikimedia wide replace by the svg version lateiner (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And also:
- File:Cidade Jardim Shops 31 Imagem Geral Box Marron.jpg
- File:TELEFÉRICO - Catarina Fashion Outlet Shopping.jpg
- File:Catarina Fashion Outlet Shopping.jpg
They look much like professional drawings made by an architect hired by the company that built or is building the shopping the mall. Such works are hardly licensed free and the copyright must be of the company and not "own work" like stated by the uploader. Stegop (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Falsches Fotoo Unterillertaler (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- mauvaise image scannée Cafedelyon (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- now asked in speedy with {{duplicate|Promenade en bord de mer (Menton, 1888). Evariste Carpentier.jpg}}. ----MGuf (d) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in use . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
According to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Animax3.png, this seems eligible for copyright in Singapore, its home country. Since Singapore was a colony of the United Kingdom, Singapore probably has a low threshold of originality. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what the COM:VPC discussion says. It just says that the image is copyrightable in countries with a low threshold of originality, and then there is some speculation about the threshold, although no one claims to know anything about it. Still, due to the lack of information about the threshold of originality in the source country, it may be safer to delete the image per COM:PRP. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination seems to lack validity, since the mentioned discussion does not confirm the nominator's assertion. I also disagree with Stefan4's over-conservative "just to be safe" approach. My approach would be to act only when certainty is achieved. Fleet Command (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, what Stefan4 said is actually policy, see COM:PRP. Also I have crossed off the Village pump part. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 13:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with COM:PRP. I just do not see it applicable here. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Common law (that's what Singapore has) usally has the dreaded "skill and labour test", and as a result it may be copyrightable. I personally think it could be copyrighted too. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I assume you are referring to the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. I run into the same discussion a couple of years ago and it seems to me that Wikimedia Commons (and EU Courts, for that matter) reject this doctrine. Perhaps someone can update me on this if I am wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
No, they reject it if it's PD-Art. They don't reject it if it's marked as PD-textlogo. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)- Hmmm... Is that so? Well, I'm a bit confused here. First, who rejects it? Commons or EU court? Second, how comes a law can be rejected in one case and not in the other? Any qualification factor? Third, isn't a logo that is not simple text a work of art? A link to a policy page is appreciated. Fleet Command (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- It was the EU court that rejected it. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reference? An EU court has rejected the sweat of the brow doctrine but appears to allow different thresholds of originality in different EU countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er... no, not that. I was referring to the C3F2k's message that reads "No, they reject it if it's PD-Art. They don't reject it if it's marked as PD-textlogo." But even so, if what you say is true, then this image would be a definite keep, right? If you are feeling I am getting wrong signals, I will be grateful if you started over rephrased your sentence more clearly. Fleet Command (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I am rephrasing it. Wikimedia Commons has an exception to the usual licensing policy right here, which means that for files that are claimed to be copyrighted but a derivative work of a preexisting file, the Wikimedia Foundation rejects these claims, even if it is eligible for copyright in its home country. This policy does not apply to PD-textlogo, and only applies to PD-Art. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Er... no, not that. I was referring to the C3F2k's message that reads "No, they reject it if it's PD-Art. They don't reject it if it's marked as PD-textlogo." But even so, if what you say is true, then this image would be a definite keep, right? If you are feeling I am getting wrong signals, I will be grateful if you started over rephrased your sentence more clearly. Fleet Command (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reference? An EU court has rejected the sweat of the brow doctrine but appears to allow different thresholds of originality in different EU countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I assume you are referring to the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. I run into the same discussion a couple of years ago and it seems to me that Wikimedia Commons (and EU Courts, for that matter) reject this doctrine. Perhaps someone can update me on this if I am wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Common law (that's what Singapore has) usally has the dreaded "skill and labour test", and as a result it may be copyrightable. I personally think it could be copyrighted too. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with COM:PRP. I just do not see it applicable here. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- But dear C3F2k, do you by this time remember what was our original subject of discussion? It was about the "sweat of the brow" doctrine and how it applies to this image. The phrase is not even once mentioned in the entire policy page to which you linked. I appreciate your attempt but it seems you only succeed in sending me further and further from our topic. I am really at a loss about what you mean to tell me and I still see no reason why you wish to delete this image. Sorry. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, what Stefan4 said is actually policy, see COM:PRP. Also I have crossed off the Village pump part. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 13:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Too simple to be copyrighted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Several instances of this image found via Google reverse images search. Highly doubtful is user's own work. Would need real source and copyright status to consider keeping. – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, as all uploads of this user have to be found "not own work". --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is not "own work". Hekerui (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 19:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is a copyright poster on this image and this is not de minimis Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Background blurred. No copyright issues now. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Issue pobably solved. Badseed talk 19:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The xml in this image is not right. There is a png image which is in use on various projects. As this SVG is corrupt or whatever, and is not in use, we should nuke this as not being potentially in scope. russavia (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure it will be cheaper to recreate than to fix? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- yes - should be deleted, sorry for the bad file format, i will try to produce a better one. Hannes Grobe 19:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, I uploaded a slightly modified version of File:CO2-variations-d_hg.svg over. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Looks OK now. Badseed talk 19:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
GianniG46 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Uploaded by me - replaced by another image - not used and no page links here GianniG46 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploader's request. Badseed talk 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. From http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231377210244423&set=a.231377193577758.50269.122641667784645&type=3 Andres Rojas (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aca no hay nada de copyright, el piensa que hice violación.
- --Mega-buses (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I think that the logo is does meet the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright Violation. From http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231377246911086&set=a.231377193577758.50269.122641667784645&type=3 Andres Rojas (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete. I don't think the logo meets the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyright Violation. From http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231377246911086&set=a.231377193577758.50269.122641667784645&type=3 Andres Rojas (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think the logo meets the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. From http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231377210244423&set=a.231377193577758.50269.122641667784645&type=3 Andres Rojas (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aca no hay nada de copyright, el piensa que hice violación.
- --Mega-buses (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I think that the logo is does meet the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. From http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231377246911086&set=a.231377193577758.50269.122641667784645&type=3 Andres Rojas (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think the logo meets the treshold of originality. Ralgis 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Information at this link indicates that the underlying music is not yet in the public domain -- we need information on Delin Guillory and Lewis Lafleur so that we can assess the copyright of the work. The OTRS ticket appears to be from a the Cajun Red Stars (or representative) so whilst they can licence their performance under a free licence, the underlying work is likely not yet PD. russavia (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I looked in the OTRS-ticket and russavia is correct: The permission is only for the performance (by the band), not for the song itself – sorry for the mistake by the OTRS-Team. --DaB. (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Other sources claim that the song as traditional Cajun. According to these websites, it is a traditional tune: [1], [2], [3], [4] … This is also the opinion of the band, when I was asking. Joadl (talk)
- A request was addressed to the Austrian Society for the exploitation of copyrights, AKM | www.akm.at. I hope to get an answer. Joadl (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The AKM has reported that the musical number in their Austrian archives for the first time in 1949 with Monot Yanies appears as author. Joadl (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Norebird kindly informs me, that is recorded on this CD published by Trikont-Verlag in 1989 Bosco Stomp as Trad *. Joadl (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Immediately source of this image is this blog. However, the oldest hit I could find, is this article from 2007 which expressedly prohibits commercial use. Thereby, not allowed on Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've also looked for the original source of this image, and couldn't find it. It's presumably a composite of two images; here's a related image used in a blog, again without copyright information: The Elephant in the Room, in the Running Shoes. Easchiff (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LOLWUT! Don't know what this is supposed to represent, and it is in use (unbelievably), but this is not educational in any way. russavia (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a fragment of File:Rue de Braque 1572.jpg, now presented as an annotation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like it's being used constructively on the French Wikipedia. A look at that page suggests that this "fragment" is being used in a way that the larger image couldn't be used. At any rate, from COM:SCOPE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." (emphases added) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use, therefore not out of scope. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- Fausses couleurs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- now asked in speedy with {{duplicate|Jeune fille à l'arrosoir (Évariste Carpentier, 1845-1922).jpg}}. ----MGuf (d) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: We often keep several versions of scans of paintings. We have several versions of a number of the paintings by this artist. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: toys are a form of art. MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that toys are protected but not all. A ball is a toy but would we say that all pictures of balls are copyvios? I think that in most cases toys are deleted as copyvios because the toy is shaped as a copyrighted figure. So if Mickey Mouse is protected then toys shaped like MM is protected and if some Pokemon is protected then toys shaped like Pokemon is protected. But I do not think that all toys are copyvios.
- In this case I would say that you may see that it is a pelican but it is not possible to see that it is a specific pelican so I would not think it is a speedy deletion or even a copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This cannot be true. If that picture were protected, all recent pieces of art, all modern statues etc would be forbidden. Handige Harrie (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Harrie, all images of recently created statues that aren't in the public spaces of countries that have Freedom of Panorama áre forbidden. See for instance the hilarious discussion I had last year on the TEDxAmsterdam trophy. And yes, most toys are a form of art. In this case it is also a trademark of the Sanquin bloodbank. --Vera (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- We have {{Trademark}} for that. We do not care about trademarks. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's still an issue if it's over the threshold of originality. --Vera (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- We have {{Trademark}} for that. We do not care about trademarks. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Think of it as sculpture, if you like -- it is clearly covered by copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We thank Interfase for taking the time to upload these videos, because the underlying work (the music and songs) are copyrighted, they unfortunately need to be deleted. Pristurus (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. What a music? There are only cheers. --Interfase (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with the author of the file that there is no music during this file. --Mheidegger (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
FOP in Azerbaijan does not allow commercial use of images of copyrighted works including architectural works 46.70.85.19 13:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. This photo doesn't show architectural works. The main purpose of this photo is to show fans. --Interfase (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Mass deletion nominations by sockpuppet as an attempt at harassment. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This item is a derivative work, and there is no freedom of panorama for artwork in the US that was placed in the public square 1978 or later. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- A photo of a public statue commissioned by a public entity, paid for by donations made by the local public (including yours truly, the photographer) and placed in a public park isn't acceptable on the commons? Have we really come to this? 108.33.125.82 01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, we haven't. According to City of Tampa Ordinance 2000-227, Sec. 4-6, the city has title and ownership of all public art commissioned by the city or any of its agencies, such as this statue. Florida's public records law "overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption." This image is in the public domain.
- See Template:PD-FLGov for more details and Category:PD Florida for over 500 more examples. Zeng8r (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Was the statue made by someone directly employed by the City of Tampa or was the sculptor employed through some third party? The statue is only in the public domain if it was made by the City of Tampa; it is not enough if it was just made for the City of Tampa, unless {{PD-FLGov}} has different rules than {{PD-USGov}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the entire template at {{PD-FLGov}}? Among the legalese, it quotes the relevant court decision as stating that the work of "any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf" is in the public domain. The court explained that this applies to "the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts." It's pretty clear-cut. Zeng8r (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are operating a fundamental misunderstanding of works by commission versus works for hire. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- For example, if the government goes to a supermarket and buys a newspaper, the newspaper doesn't automatically become {{PD-FLGov}}. Similarly, if the government goes to a supermarket and buys a statue, the statue doesn't automatically become {{PD-FLGov}}. Yes, I know that they don't sell statues at supermarkets, but that is not the point: you could sign a contract which would basically work in the same way as buying something from a supermarket. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary. You people either have a fundamental understanding of this law or you refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect; the rhetorical calisthenics on display here are pretty astounding. (A newspaper???) A photo of public art that was commissioned and purchased by a public municipality, is owned by said municipality, and is prominently displayed in a public park on public land clearly fits the description above from the relevant court case.
- As for a contract, I can't imagine that the city of Tampa would commission public art and not obtain enough rights to said work that local citizens can't share snapshots of it. Just to be sure, I've contacted the Tampa's public art department for their opinion. Zeng8r (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:VPC#I found it!!! for an example of where public art was commissioned and purchased by the US federal government but where the US post was fined for using a picture of the said artwork on a stamp. By your arguing, that public artwork would be in the public domain, so can you explain why the US post was fined? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant example, as it has nothing to do with Florida law. The court ruling in question only applies to government works here. Anyway, I received an email reply from Robin Nigh, manager of Tampa's Art Programs Division:
Thank you for your most thought provoking question! I do not speak for the city on legal matters, but in general, the bottom line is use and intent; and the factor that most disturbs artists is if someone is generating revenue from their work. To encourage submissions, the city agrees that artwork will not be used to create a product that will be sold to generate revenue. In that case, we would enter into a separate contract with the artist. This has never happened to date. Reproducing images of the artwork for non-revenue purposes (for example: educational, informational, and promotional purposes) is accepted.
Zeng8r (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the US Post Office copyrights its stamps, so there might be a problem with the Post Office taking a PD image, putting it on a stamp and copyrighting it, maybe? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's no problem. If you take a PD work and put it on the stamp, then that particular stamp is in the public domain even if other stamps from the same postal service are copyrighted. The issue mentioned above is that the US post wasn't allowed to put a picture of the work on a stamp in the first place since the work was copyrighted and since it was used without permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The message from Robin Nigh makes it clear that any license the city has is NC and therefore not acceptable on Commons.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. As a general rule, copyright remains with the artist. Note, for example, that several official White House Portraits are not PD because the artist owns the copyright. Similarly, a Florida judge cannot take an artists copyright without compensation unless the artist has agreed to transfer the copyright. Since there is Nigh's message that indicates that that is not the case, we cannot keep the image here without the consent of the artist. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Raoul Lamourdedieu is dead in 1953. No FoP in France. 82.124.112.36 21:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I took this photograph and would be sorry to see it deleted. Were Lamourdedieu alive I am sure he would have liked to see his work given the publicity it deserves. This sort of thing seems tiresome and petty but then "rules are rules".
Weglinde (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Raoul Lamourdedieu is dead in 1953. No FoP in France. 82.124.112.36 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exceptionally surely free of rights because this memorial is on many books upon Charente and WWII. See other photographs in this category, and other WWII memorials in France. Jack ma (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This image is free in Argentina, but it is not in the US because it carried a copyright notice post-1977 (and even if it hadn't, it would have been restored per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}). Per Commons policy, images must be free in their home country AND in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are arguing inconsistent positions. A work that has been copyrighted in the U.S. is not eligible for URAA. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Er, no I'm not. Do you know what the words "even if" mean? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of User:76.124.236.162: per the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:MI5.jpg, this appears to be a piece of unofficial James Bond memorabilia, not the logo of MI5. Carnildo (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does it matter? Under which part of Commons:Deletion policy has the file been nominated? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion started on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:MI5.jpg and the first post was:
This image (claiming to be a former logo of MI5, the UK Security Service) is tagged as from the CIA World Factbook, and also as being public domain due to UK government copyright having expired. However, I do not believe that this is accurate and I cannot verify that the image is authentic. It has, however, been on Wikipedia or Commons for years! I cannot find it in the CIA World Factbook. I also doubt whether it is actually created by the UK government. On English Wikipedia, the MI5 page refers to the book Defence of the Realm, the authorized history of MI5 by Christopher Andrew. The logo does not appear anywhere in that book, and the "Mankind's Immortal Victory" phrase comes from a different image (a sketch by a former deputy director of the service, nothing to do with this logo), though there is a drawing of an all-seeing-eye logo that does not resemble this one (it is a giant eye with a Latin motto underneath, and other decorations). It does not appear on the MI5 website. In all the years it has appeared on English Wikipedia, it hasn't garnered additional attribution beyond (1) either pre-1955 or 1950s-1970s, and (2) a "citation needed" tag that has sat there untouched for years.
The image does seem to be used quite widely on conspiracy-theory sites, due to the eye-in-a-pyramid motif. The uploader here is one "FU NWO" whose other contributions are on the same theme - probably the username is short for "Fuck You New World Order". The history of the image on English Wikipedia is also dominated by conspiracy types.
In summary, I think this image is likely to be inauthentic, and in any case its provenance is different from that claimed - it is not from the World Factbook, there is no evidence that it comes from the UK government, and it may be an outright fabrication by conspiracy theorists.
Update: This ebay page shows a cap badge in the same design, but with "007" on the crown. The author says: "I designed it and offered it for years in the Baird Collectibles mail order catalog. I also wholesaled the emblems to other mail order catalog companies who dealt in spy related items. It's not likely that any spy would carry a badge, but I thought that if the world's most famous fictional spy had a badge or a patch it would look something like this, starting with the triangle, adding a Queen's crown and logo (EIIR), with MIV and 007. I was later told by folks from England that MI5 is never written with the roman numberal V, but I still thought it was a neat design and there are thousands of these badges and patches in circulation. The design was never officially associated with any British spy organization nor the fictional character James Bond."
This is not an MI5 logo, but a piece of unofficial James Bond memorabilia. (Bond wasn't even in MI5!) I assume it is also under the copyright of eBay user "bedoya2".
--76.124.236.162 23:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The licensing (and description) definitely need to be changed to show that it's a modern creation. As for copyright, it might not be complicated enough to be eligible. The crown is a PD image, while the rest is a triangle and text; {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-ineligible}} might apply. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say it's far too complicated to be PD-shape or PD-ineligible: any given piece of it might not be copyrightable, but there are a great many pieces there, in a very distinctive arrangement. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- The licensing (and description) definitely need to be changed to show that it's a modern creation. As for copyright, it might not be complicated enough to be eligible. The crown is a PD image, while the rest is a triangle and text; {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-ineligible}} might apply. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely a hoax, and probably a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete According to discussion, this is not an official patch, and I consider it as misleading and out of Commons scope - Badseed talk 18:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – The file is requested to be deleted because it's "unofficial James Bond memorabilia, not the logo of MI5". Being inauthentic is not part of Commons:Deletion policy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well yes, strictly speaking it isn't, but if this isn't the official badge, as what could it be hosted in Commons? MI5 fan art? I fail to see any encyclopedic use. Even if there was one, there's still the issue of the copyright of the guy who designed this; so this file is probably a copyvio. However, if it's kept in the end, I think it would be necessary to rename it and unlink it from all the wikis on which it's used as the official badge - Badseed talk 09:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission from purported author. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It would not have been PD in Bangladesh when the URAA restoration date (1996) was set. So it is not free in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't understand the reason "URAA restoration date" you mention above. Can you please elaborate? In any case, the copyright holder of the image has granted the image to Wikipedia under PD. It was from a few years ago, but I will try to dig up the email and send to OTRS. --Ragib (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is it that in the United States, if a work was not public domain in the home country before January 1st, 1996, it gained copyright protection in the United States. However, I am on OTRS and I can check the system for your email. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. Send email to COM:OTRS FASTILY (TALK) 02:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful that it is the uploader's own work (base image must be copyrighted by the agency). Can't be free in the US, either, as any copyright would have been extended by the URAA Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Crisco but I don't get it. It's the emblem of a political party that was outlawed before the invention of the PC, so I'm sure they didn't upload it--but by the same token there really can't be anyone claiming to own the copyright. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Even if the copyright holder can't be identified, that doesn't mean the item isn't under copyright. It could have been assumed/confiscated by the state, someone could have gotten control of it ... the thing is, we don't know what happened, what Dutch laws surrounding copyright of emblems might be, etc. Under the circumstances, I don't see how an airtight assertion of public domain can be made, and that's what would be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the Netherlands has 70 years post publication for anonymous works. Thus, it would have been extended by the URAACrisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently copyrighted FASTILY (TALK) 02:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Contested deletion: "below the threshold of originality". User:Rosenzweig never explained how the WB shield is not original, nor given evidence that it was published before 1923. Just because the company was created between 1918-1923, doesn't mean their current logo came with their creation. Do we need this kind of actions against the WMF? Because I have to remind you that WMF is not the USPTO and cannot decide arbitrarily what is "PD-text", when it is not text alone. Tbhotch™ 21:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep My precise wording for rejecting the speedy deletions was “below the threshold of originality, see Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States, and probably old enough to qualify as PD-old anyway.” Note the probably regarding PD-old and the link to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States. The WB logo is not any more original than the cases listed there. --Rosenzweig τ 02:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It seems a version of the logo that resembles this one very much came in 1929, while an earlier version came in (not before) 1923 [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 02:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please employ a more civil tone? And kindly explain why do you feel it is anyone's obligation to move specific files from the different Wikipedia versions to Commons, even if they are not very active in those particular Wikipedias. And one more question, why do you presume to know which logos I have seen where and how often? Altogether, your contributions in this case here seem rather accusatory and not very helpful. --Rosenzweig τ 01:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep too simple and probably too old. Fry1989 eh? 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mauvais scannage de l'image Cafedelyon (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Please use {{Duplicate|Place Saint-Jacques (Evariste Carpentier).jpg}} in stead of deletion request. --Foroa (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Базар в праздник в Цимлянской станице. 1875-1876.jpg added as a part of legacy of Ivan Boldyrev. Zac allan (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- И еще раз по-русски: залил массово фотографии Ивана Болдырева, теперь удаляю одиночные дубли, которые до этого не смог обнаружить. Оригиналы взяты мной с сайта Российской Национальной библиотеки, Санкт-Петербург. - Zac allan (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Для дублей есть критерий быстрого удаления {{Duplicate}}. Doff (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- По которому я его и выставил вчера. Файл удалён. Doff (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Для дублей есть критерий быстрого удаления {{Duplicate}}. Doff (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved to speedy deletion as duplicate and deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. Doff (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: 19st century image is clearly in PD. Dupe was deleted. Anatoliy (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Handcuffed
[edit]- File:Showing a leg - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Awaiting a spanking - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:2010-0725 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Pretty panties - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Red panties down-01 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Ann 11-08-18 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:2011-1795 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Anns whipping Jan 2012 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting (1).jpg
- File:Jennifer Anns whipping Jan 2012 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Anns whipping Jan 2012-30 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:11-clamped balls and red panties - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-1 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-2 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-4 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-5 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-12 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-13 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-15 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-19 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-21 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer March 2012-23 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Flameco-02 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Flameco-07 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
- File:Jennifer Ann on the carpet - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting (3).jpg
- File:Jennifer Ann on the carpet - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting (2).jpg
- File:Jennifer Ann on the carpet - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting (1).jpg
- File:Jennifer Ann on the carpet - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Out of scope. – JBarta (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Repetitive exhibitionism. O'Dea (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep They are in scope as high-quality images depicting Feminization (activity) and Crossdressing. "OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE" is not a valid deletion criterion, and basically just amounts to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. "Repetitive exhibitionism" is no reason to delete either. Handcuffed (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, appropriately licensed media, contributed freely by author, useful images with value on this project, in scope according to criteria, unique images, as illustrations of both Crossdressing in addition to Feminization (activity), and therefore serves a specific educational focus. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Who are you kidding... this is oddball exhibitionism pure and simple. There is nothing useful, valuable or educational about them. Keep one or two if we don't already have some decent images of crossdressing or feminization and toss the rest. Commons should not be a dumping ground for prolific exhibitionists who aren't content with more appropriate outlets. – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also see COM:PORN. (Commons is not an amateur porn site) – JBarta (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- That policy is ignored, we like to have articles on inappropriate things, so we need inappropriate pictures to illustrate them ! --Claritas (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, that policy is NOT ignored. It's unfortunate that a few don't always exercise good and mature judgment making such a policy necessary in the first place, but like any other policy, it is generally enforced. – JBarta (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- That policy is ignored, we like to have articles on inappropriate things, so we need inappropriate pictures to illustrate them ! --Claritas (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm ambivalent on what's done with the files. But if they're kept, they most definitely need to be renamed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd change my !vote to rename. The files were not at all what I expected. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all, please do not change names. Old names are funny, and vaguely descriptive. --Claritas (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Out of scope per Commons is not an amateur porn site. On the author's Flickr page, s/he states that "I am keen to be exposed across the web" as part of his/her sexual fantasies. So while we could make this deletion discussion about debate the photographic merit of each image, the bigger issue is: Will we permit Wikimedia Commons to be used as a distribution site for exhibitionists? No. Senator2029║talk 02:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Due to the redundancy (vast spam of "Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting xx") and the intension of the FlickR user "expose across the web" we have COM:PORN and "commons is not a database for every shit". If the FlickR user have problems with his sexuality, he should not abuse commons and instead go to a therapist. Sole exhibitionism. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- PS: Of course no EXIF-data, hence likely copyvio. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept - Copyvio? No evidence of this, and while lacking EXIF is a sign of a copyvio it's not proof, and should not be treated as such. Out of scope? Well, crossdressing is within scope, so no, not really. Exhibitionism? Yes, but the motives of the uploader are not relevant so long as the image is free and within scope. Now, I dearly wish I could unsee these images, they prove that my boyfriend is the only guy who can make panties look sexy, but they are within scope and they are freely licensed, and, given the whole "slut for reposting" aspect we can safely assume that the subject consented. This is the sort of thing you lord over your subs, and which they get off on seeing view counts etc rise. So anyway, no real reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We thank Interfase for taking the time to upload these videos, because the underlying work (the music and songs) are copyrighted, they unfortunately need to be deleted.
- File:Mandinga Baku 2012 video.ogv
- File:Ivi Adamou Baku 2012 video.ogv
- File:Buranov Grannies Baku 2012 video.ogv
russavia (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I added not songs but videos of performance of these artists. I made this videos myself. And there is not full versions of songs. And what about this one, or this one? --Interfase (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we could cut the sound off, but leave the picture, couldn't we? Ain92 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- From what I remember sound recordings up to 30 seconds long are permitted. It is possible to just cut off the length. Brandmeister (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- One can out the sound, and it would be all ok. Brandmeister, recordings of up to 30 seconds are only allowed under en:WP:NFCC, and are not allowed to be hosted on Commons.
- From what I remember sound recordings up to 30 seconds long are permitted. It is possible to just cut off the length. Brandmeister (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Like in FoP case, these no full, no made by copyrighters or official broadcasters/recorders, no perfomance reproducing-able due to low resolution videoclips may be placed in WikiCommons. 178.204.90.159 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately no matter how good or bad the sound recording may or may not be, it is still a derivative work russavia (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete The music and text of song are copyrighted - we can't leave them at commons. But if we delete audio and leave only video - it will be normal. Dinamik (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think if somebody deletes the songs there isn't any problem.--Sebasweee (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is three months later and no one has removed the songs. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)