Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/27
 |
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}
77.51.208.84 04:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)porno images 77.51.208.84 04:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from website so speedy - thanks Herby talk thyme 07:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
77.51.208.84 04:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)porno images 77.51.208.84 04:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from website so speedy - thanks Herby talk thyme 07:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong licensing, low res (apparently the thumbnail was taken as basis for this crop). Replaced by File:Ashley Judd ioc cropped.jpg. Saibo (Δ∇) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The source says "For permission to reproduce or publish, contact osiaref@si.edu or call 202-633-5870. To order reproductions, call 202-633-1933 or contact photos@si.edu". This is not covered by {{SIA-no known copyright restrictions}}. The photo as it appears now has indeterminate copyright status, and our precautionary principle applies to such cases. russavia (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Hi there. I am the Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. I assure you that I have permission to upload these images and I have been advised by staff on what license to use. You can read more about my residency here. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I am withdrawing this nomination for now, and will discuss some issues with Sarah which will need to be fixed. russavia (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawing nomination russavia (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No copyright status of the images included in the collection, Most of the images are deleted, FOP need to be considered for the picture of mosque. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- The mosque picture has already been deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bahrain Grand Mosque.jpg. If we can replace this mosque from the montage, we can keep this image. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- So this image will have to go, As most of the images are deleted.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- If this picture violates a law, I believe it must be deleted. --Sainsf (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
- If this picture violates a law, I believe it must be deleted. --Sainsf (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- So this image will have to go, As most of the images are deleted.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Es handelt sich nicht um Lobsang Sangay 194.166.244.70 09:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- approve, it is not Tibetan exile-prime minister Lobsang Sangay, but some other person unknown to me. --El bes (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for being wrong. Please remove misnamed file ASAP.
- I contacted Austrian Tibetan community on findig out the name of the "somewhat official" person shown, but do not yet have an answer. I might upload a correctly named file, afterwards. [w.] 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- To explain: Thatone was a highly emotional day to me, and, besides, my 61th birthday "party". ;)) [w.] 08:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Misidentified person; deleted to prevent further use. Image could possibly restored, if the depicted is correctly identified. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
scaled donw dupl. of File:Roeper upperschool 2011pan.jpg. McZusatz (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Processed as duplicate. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG
[edit]
Copyvio uploader blocked lately on English wikipedia for uploading photos under false self-made claim[1]. This picture was deleted from english wikipedia per behavioral evidence[2], few hours later MarkMysoe reuploaded it on commons, together with two other copyvio pictures. Oleola (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Offshore_platforms_at_their_final_destination,_southwest_coast_of_Ghana.JPG){kind=link}
- The image was created by me, and no one else. I am the author and sole copyright owner of (File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG). The English Wikipedia user and the person who nominated my image (File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG) for deletion was Oleola, in a speculative and assumptive thought. Taking in mind that I was not very familiar with the licencing laws regarding the uploading of photos when I decided to start uploading the photos that Oleola is mentioning. But, I do now very much understand the image licencing laws for Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons. The File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG image made and owned by me MarkMysoe was put for deletion nomination by Oleola, was all because of a accusation and speculation by Oleola, that due to the point that I uploaded photos from Flickr, and as I claimed authorship to the photos and that the photos from Flickr had a "All rights reserved" licence and not a "Some rights reserved" licence, which is the licence that is allowed on Wikimedia commons, and me not mentioning that they were from Flickr by not providing a source towards the photos to the Flickr location of the uploaded photos to Wikipedia that I was falsifying ownership of the photos Oleola is mentioning, which is totally not true, as I mentioned above, that I was not very familiar with the licencing laws on uploading photos to Wikipedia but now I'am. Because I was blocked previously from editing on English Wikipedia where I first uploaded my self authored File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG image that was put up for deletion nomination by the same Oleola from English Wikipedia, under the speculation that I do not own the image, due to the incidence of the previous photo uploading by me, which lead to me being blocked from English Wikipedia for 2 weeks, I could not do anything, comment or challenge the nomination by Oleola for the deletion of my self authored File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG image because I was blocked from editing on English Wikipedia during the File:Offshore platforms and Oil tanker at their final destination, southwest coast of Ghana.JPG image nomination for deletion procedure. MarkMysoe (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, uploader has admitted, with a renewed upload of the same file on en-wp, that the pictures are screenshots taken from a copyrighted video. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
'Own work' statement doubtful: low-res, no metadata, similar images common in Google Image search results. Abanima (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree file taken from elsewhere. Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
'Own work tag doubtful: visually similar images common in Google Image results, very low-res, no camera metadata, singer name printed in left-lower corner. Abanima (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree file taken from elsewhere. Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright : issue du site : Angers.Villactu.fr - Tous droits reservés 2012 © 78.238.225.248 15:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that the uploader had the authority to release the license on this photo. DS (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Polarlys (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - promotional image, to small to be useful Honza chodec (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
unused user uploaded self-image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering the small file size and the watermark (avito.ru) this image looks like a copyright violation. 32X (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Загружен по ошибке kosun (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused exact duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
corrupt file Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Almost text-only. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: public domain Blurpeace 01:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
and File:MOI-Formula.gif. Could be replaced with math mark-up. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Publication date unknown and the image was shot in Baku, Azerbaijan. This has no connection to the Ukraine at all, so the license is false. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and change to {{PD-Azerbaijan}}, unknown author. -Nard the Bard 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems that this image does not have a proper license. The license used for this image claims that "image is in the public domain because its author died before 1949 or 50 years ago". However, the author of this image is not specified, so there is no evidence that author died before 1949 or 50 years ago. PANONIAN (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --Cekli829 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep--N KOziTalk 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- KeepI find Pannonian will rewangschieren. That's audacity--MrArifnajafov (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - Jcb (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well...I re-read the PD-AZ template and something must have changed to where this image is no longer PD in Azerbaijan until 2015. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the 70 years pma was not retroactive on works that already fell into the public domain. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is there something in the law that says it (so we can add it to the template)? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- "3. Periods of validity of the protection, established by the present law, it is applied to all products which term of protection by the time of coming into force of the present law yet has not expired." Article 25[3]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. If you can add it to the license template, I'll close the DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done! :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. If you can add it to the license template, I'll close the DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- "3. Periods of validity of the protection, established by the present law, it is applied to all products which term of protection by the time of coming into force of the present law yet has not expired." Article 25[3]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is there something in the law that says it (so we can add it to the template)? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Private place. No evidence of COM:IDENT permission. russavia (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique image, interesting shadow and lighting. Image title and author at Flickr appears to be same individual. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Kept in 2 previous deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Amy with dildo.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/nudenoconsent - Infrogmation (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)- Keep I have trouble envisioning how this photo would have been made without the knowledge and consent of the person shown. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Cirt. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Amy appears to have released the photo herself on Flickr. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As noted, apparently released by the subject of the photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete - overexposed, blurred, no uniqueness. Commons has more than enough dildo images. Delete per COM:PENlS. Ed. J. 08:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
'Speedy kept - nothing has changed since 5 days ago, and Commons really doesn't have many dildo images. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolution 2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:A99C:FCE8:5FE4:7174 04:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous two DR´s and resolution is not a reason to delete an image. Image in scope, as proven by its use in fi:Amatööriporno and nl:Amateurpornografie. Tm (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous two DR´s --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept, per 4 previous deletion requests. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of scope russavia (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Clearly out of Project scope, therefore I changed the Nomination tah with {{Speedy}}. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not text only logo, need OTRS-permission Motopark (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The only non-text elements are the two colors of the background and a rectangle. IMHO the logo is ineligble for copyright. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Was already nominated for deletion last year and has been kept. Chaddy (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This file has an COM:IDENT issue. Private place. No consent. russavia (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There is no way this photograph of an identifiable person should be allowed ANY usage on Commons. The COM:IDENT issue surrounding it is best left unresolved. Even worse: the image is derogatory and defamatory, and it is most likely that this image would be used for vandalism if it were ever used at all. As a result, it should not be permitted any usage on any wiki of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am requesting speedy and ultimate deletion of this image, and the salting of its title. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 00:57 UTC.
Info For the person pictured it is probably not "derogatory and defamatory" and there is probably no way to take this picture in the public. ;) Possible use for vandalism is no reason for deletion. --Pilettes (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly the image is posed. The woman has consented to it being taken and is not engaged in any private activity (she is doing nothing but posing for her photo). If the amount of creativity that is being employed in "applying" Commons principles to get sexuality images deleted were to be employed constructively instead, we would have a much better project. --Simonxag (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Very well. Then I'm changing my opinion to "Keep," but as before, the image will be restricted in the community of Wikipedias, so that it can be used in only certain articles, namely, those about BDSM and nudity. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Tuesday, May 29, 2012, 14:37 UTC.
- Delete I can not see the obviousness that this was staged. Per COM:IDENT this should be deleted until we know that consent was given --Guerillero 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Actually, it is quite obvious when one looks at the flickr stream it came from. It's posed, lots of similar type images on photostream. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Posting lots of images does not establish consent. Does the license fluctuate based on the person pictured? (1 vs 2) Is the person a model? Can it be reasonably assumed that this was professionally done? Is it explicitly stated that this was consented to? Is this in a public or semi-public place? The first one is arguable. But I do not see the evidence of the license being done with conviction based on the person. Rather it appears to be based on time. The answer to the other questions is no. The safest thing to do is delete the photo. After all, there are quite a few other photos of people in BDMS cages where consent can be assumed or given. --Guerillero 05:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, artistic, unique, great use of lighting and costume. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep She is clearly a model; see http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparr0/3619233873/, for example. Besides, the photograph is obviously posed. Handcuffed (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- She may have done modelling, but (1) this image is not in the public part of Flickr, so a move to Wikimedia would give it far greater exposure than it currently has, and (2) it was quite likely taken in a setting where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. --JN466 13:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is art! --Martin1978 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Unsolicited transfer from Flickr, not okay without evidence of model consent. --JN466 13:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and Guerillero. No consent apparent. We have no hint that this photo was taken for other than private puposes even if it is staged. --Ed. J. 08:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - extremely high educational value, suitable license on flickr. --Claritas (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PRP, license doubtful. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Closed as kept. Context of original on Flickr photographer's photostream shows this is one of a series with this model in various poses. No reason to doubt photographer's license. No consensus to delete for any other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Due to the obscured face, and overall low quality, this photo has little scope for us on our projects. There are plenty of other photos which would be used over this. russavia (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative from http://www.flags.net/UNKG01.htm (copyrighted drawing of the Yorkshire flag) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Lack of permission from The World Flag Datase. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image moved to en.wiki. Fair use claimed under United States copyright laws which may not be valid in other countries, hence this image is not appropriate the Wikimedia Commons. Boghog (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unuseful image of a coat of arms. Marco 10:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unuseful image of a coat of arms. Marco 10:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Google Maps UI elements too visible for comfort... Wpedzich (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation from https://opc.mfo.de/photoNormal?id=16643 ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pictures from this site lebelled whit "Copyright:MFO" are release under cc-by-sa-2.0-de, as you can read on their homepage.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until/if UAE law changes, or the building falls out of copyright. russavia (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:IDENT problem with this file. It is in a private setting, and there doesn't appear to be any consent for publication of the photo. russavia (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe this image is public domain as stated in the upload. "Used all over the media" doesn't mean an image is in the public domain. KTC (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I should said that the image was provided by Warner Rojas to be used freely. Ernesto_vargas (talk)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Utku Tanrivere (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Obvious private situation. COM:IDENT can apply. russavia (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality. Nothing here that isn't in Category:Micropenis. Doesn't meet our new uploads criteria russavia (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doppelte Datei mit fast gleichem Namen, dieses Bild wird nicht benutzt. Pedelecs (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:NGC 559 big.png (derivative work) is better. Metrónomo (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep From what I can find in some brief searching, the house was constructed around 1800, so any architectural copyright would now have long expired. --Delirium (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: 18th century building. Badseed talk 00:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Derivative work. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Derivative work, as per nom. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this logo meet threshold of originality? If so, it should be deleted. Dereckson (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it's more than PD-textlogo for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This request is a waste of time. The logo clearly does not meet the threshold of originality. It's a pure text logo. Chaddy (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely not a copyright violation, even not according to the much stricter Commons rules. Chaddy (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Almost obviously not the uploader's own work. Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Pretty blatant copyvio. No evidence of ownership/permission. Rehevkor ✉ 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 18:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploader :
unnecessary unused belated inferior duplicate of File:Logo_de-hessen1.png --Perhelion (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Info This GIF was created for browser IE display, because the old PNG (fixed now) had a rendering bug in IE(6-7). So there is no reason to keep this forgotten image anymore. The uploader dont knows the reason for this (but he prefer always GIF).[4] -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The copyrighted elements of the sign (the photo) are de minimis to the overall photograph, helped by the fact that the photo has been vandalized and is largely missing. The text and letter C logo do not pass the threshold of originality. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Image of election sign. 2D works like signs are not covered by Freedom of Panorama in Canada. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep nominator not fully aware of copyright laws.--Moxy (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The copyrighted elements of the sign (the photo) are de minimis to the overall photograph, helped by the fact that the photo has been vandalized and is largely missing. The text and letter C logo do not pass the threshold of originality. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- How is a photograph which takes up a quarter of the sign "de minimis"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: agree with the nominator. --JuTa 21:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for 2D works. This work is not covered by any possibly exemptions to that rule. russavia (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative image. However, this one is in use, and could theoretically be cropped just above the "Bring Back the Alberta Advantage" slogan, so as to remove the copyright element. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I gave it a shot (a crop, that is). If this is okay, the prior versions can be deleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that "derivative" would mean cropping to the human subject's photo and then presenting that as a free image of that person. That said I'll grant that neither is this work just a landscape with happens to have a photo of a person appearing in the general background... it's essentially a composite of signage. Anyway, I would encourage russavia to be more specific henceforth. There are all sorts of outdoor images on Commons that have a 2D work in the background. At issue is equating the larger work with the 2D work, and to do that it should be stated clearly just what the 2D work is that is alleged to constitute the whole work.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. It's a derivative work if the copyrighted component is sufficiently central to the image that it isn't de minimis. And, yes, there are all sorts of images on Commons that have a 2D work in the background -- see Commons:De minimis. Russavia's nomination was pretty clear. If the copyrighted element is not DM, then the overall photo is a copyright violation unless it can be cropped out somehow. The copyrighted element need not constitute the whole work for there to be a copyvio. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: @Brian Dell -- Those of us who do a lot of work on Commons dealing with the 8,000+ new images and 2,000+ deletions every day tend to be brief, perhaps a little too brief, in our comments. It would be clear to any experienced user what Russavia meant, but not, as you suggest, to all. I'm sorry for that, but it probably isn;t going to change much until we get two or three times as many active Admins -- right now, ten of us handle around 90% of the volume. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zscout370 as no source (no source since) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- There was also no source or license at the English Wikipedia, it just said "Banner of the Kings of Scotland- no copyright holder." But the image was taken from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-sc-rb.html. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This comes from FOTW, whose copyright rules we routinely honor. Note thwat while the blazon (written description) of a flag may have no copyright, each individual representation drawn from the blazon has a copyright of its own. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
L'auteur de la photo s'interroge sur l'application de l'absence de liberté de panorama dans le cas présent. The author asks himself if it's a FoP case. Dereckson (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. La stèle me semble dépasser le seuil d'originalité, nous sommes donc dans un cas d'abseence de liberté de panorama. This commemorative monument seems to meet the threshold of originality, and so the image should be deleted as there isn't FoP in France. --Dereckson (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep/Conserver. Cette stèle est équivalente à un "Monument aux morts comme" il en existe des milliers en France sur les places des villages, dans les cimetières, dans les rues ou édifices publics... Tous ces monuments ou stèles ne sont pas l’œuvre d’artistes décédés depuis plus de 70 ans (2ème Guerre Mondiale, Guerre d’Indochine, guerre d’Algérie,…). Alors je repose ma question : "Quelle est la recommandation de Wikimédia/Commons en ce qui concerne les stèles ?" Si c’est la même que pour les œuvres d’artistes (et encore qu’il faille identifier les artistes de ces stèles), alors OK, il faut supprimer de Commons cette photo mais aussi toutes les photos de stèles et autres monuments aux morts qui seraient dans le même cas. Faute de réponse claire à ma question, je demande la conservation de la photo.
PS : N'étant pas un spécialiste des expressions utilisées dans Commons, que signifie l'expression "...dépasser le seuil d'originalité" ?..--Poudou99 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)- La recommandation est d'avoir uniquement des médias libres, une photo d'une stèle est une oeuvre dérivée de la stèle et nous force à respecter le droit d'auteur qui s'applique à la stèle (a priori non libre sans autorisation explicite de l'auteur à envoyer à COM:OTRS/fr). Dans certains pays la liberté de panorama permet de prendre en photo et de republier librement les oeuvres installées dans l'espace public, ce n'est pas le cas en France. Concernant le seuil d'originalité, c'est le seuil à partir duquel on considère que l'oeuvre est suffisamment originale pour ouvrir des droits d'auteur. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Je prends contact avec la FNACA pour voir de quelle manière je peux obtenir cette autorisation. Poudou99. --81.249.179.222 11:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- J'attends une réponse de la FNACA et je vais aussi m'adresser à la mairie d'Itteville. --Poudou99 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Si tu as une réponse n'hésite pas à le dire ici, j'ai mis la page en suivi :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- J'attends une réponse de la FNACA et je vais aussi m'adresser à la mairie d'Itteville. --Poudou99 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Je prends contact avec la FNACA pour voir de quelle manière je peux obtenir cette autorisation. Poudou99. --81.249.179.222 11:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- La recommandation est d'avoir uniquement des médias libres, une photo d'une stèle est une oeuvre dérivée de la stèle et nous force à respecter le droit d'auteur qui s'applique à la stèle (a priori non libre sans autorisation explicite de l'auteur à envoyer à COM:OTRS/fr). Dans certains pays la liberté de panorama permet de prendre en photo et de republier librement les oeuvres installées dans l'espace public, ce n'est pas le cas en France. Concernant le seuil d'originalité, c'est le seuil à partir duquel on considère que l'oeuvre est suffisamment originale pour ouvrir des droits d'auteur. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The image clearly infringes the copyright of the sculptor / designer. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission. Velocitas (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Permission by management of SOPN by mail to spread there logo. NLers (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- They have to verify the permission by sending an email message to the OTRS team of Wikimedia Commons. Make them clear anyone can use the SOPN logo with the license; also commercially. Velocitas (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
False "own-work" claim, originally from a blog [5], unlikely all included logos are also free. Intermediate image is an obvious copyvio, but has no relation with the original uploader. Savhñ 10:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Uses unfree logos (note: blocked Pat3000 and deleted the images he intermixed) Platonides (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but this work is my own-work", I'm Adrien GADAUD, I'm living in Paris in FRANCE and if you go to the blog: "social buster" [6] you could see at the end of the post that I have signed By my Name: Adrien G., and my real name is Adrien GADAUD, and i've create this picture by illustrator 5.5 and photoshop 5.5 and it take me a long hours of works! I've post this picture in wikipedia common's and then I put it on my blog, but if you tell me i'ts not possible maybe you can explain me...
- Thanks a lot for moderate wikipedia...
- Adrien GADAUD
- Maybe someone could make somethings.... soon 1 month!
- Thanks a lot for moderate wikipedia...
- Adrien GADAUD
So do you claim to have the rights to release all those logos under a free license? Platonides (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo inventato sulla base dei loghi della metropolitana di Roma Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ho aggiornato questa versione cancellatela pure --0ne, Two, Three (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- e quindi solo perché è inventato va cancellato? --Pava (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dobbiamo dare informazioni corrette o ci inventiamo cose che non esistono?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- beh dipende dall'uso che se ne fa, se la descrizione dell'immagine è disinformante allora si cambia la descrizione, se ne viene fatto un uso improprio allora si interviene sull'uso, ma come lavoro di grafica può restare, no? Inoltre il simbolo della metropolitana di Milano è graficamente molto semplice, non penso possano esserci così tanti vincoli a livello di copyright, quindi secondo me quest'opera ha tutto il diritto di esistere, basta che non venga descritta come logo ufficiale di qualcosa. Al massimo possiamo discutere sul segnalare quanto questa sia opera derivata dal simbolo della metro di Milano. Se cambiamo descrizione e chiediamo di rinominare il file multimediale il file può restare? no? --Pava (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Non c'entra con la metropolitana di Milano, è stato creato basandosi sui loghi (ufficiali) della metropolitana di Roma, mentre il logo usato a Napoli è completamente diverso (qui).
- Per tornare alla richiesta di cancellazione, se prendessi questo simbolo e scrivessi nella descrizione "Logo della linea rossa della metropolitana di Milano" sarebbe una mia invenzione, e andrebbe rimosso, vi pare?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ma quello che dico io è che la descrizione va assolutamente cambiata, non si tratta del logo della metro di napoli, la descrizione è errata e quindi va sostituita, ma l'immagine di per se non viola nessuna parte del regolamento, può quindi rimanere su commons. Questo io dico --Pava (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, ma la nuova descrizione come potrebbe essere? "Logo di un'eventuale linea metropolitana 6 disegnato ispirandosi alla grafica della metropolitana di Roma"? Non sarà da cancellazione, ma non ha molto senso...--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- va bene la descrizione che hai scritto tu per definire l'immagine nel tuo primo intervento: Logo inventato sulla base dei loghi della metropolitana di Roma. Poi se a noi sembra inutile magari in un futuro a qualcuno sarà utile, magari non so un padre che vuole costruire al suo bambino una metro inventata fatta di scatoloni sparsi per l'erba del giardino e il bambino si diverte a passarci dentro con un finto treno, e non sapendo usare un programma di grafica vuole delle grafiche già esistenti, poco importa se inventate, per appicciarle ad uno scatolone e farlo diventare una stazione del metro. (esempio eh). Intanto cambio la descrizione, poi se vogliamo essere al 100% corretti bisogna cambiare pure il titolo ma non so come si fa --Pava (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fatto, ho richiesto la ridenominazione.--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- va bene la descrizione che hai scritto tu per definire l'immagine nel tuo primo intervento: Logo inventato sulla base dei loghi della metropolitana di Roma. Poi se a noi sembra inutile magari in un futuro a qualcuno sarà utile, magari non so un padre che vuole costruire al suo bambino una metro inventata fatta di scatoloni sparsi per l'erba del giardino e il bambino si diverte a passarci dentro con un finto treno, e non sapendo usare un programma di grafica vuole delle grafiche già esistenti, poco importa se inventate, per appicciarle ad uno scatolone e farlo diventare una stazione del metro. (esempio eh). Intanto cambio la descrizione, poi se vogliamo essere al 100% corretti bisogna cambiare pure il titolo ma non so come si fa --Pava (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, ma la nuova descrizione come potrebbe essere? "Logo di un'eventuale linea metropolitana 6 disegnato ispirandosi alla grafica della metropolitana di Roma"? Non sarà da cancellazione, ma non ha molto senso...--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ma quello che dico io è che la descrizione va assolutamente cambiata, non si tratta del logo della metro di napoli, la descrizione è errata e quindi va sostituita, ma l'immagine di per se non viola nessuna parte del regolamento, può quindi rimanere su commons. Questo io dico --Pava (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Non c'entra con la metropolitana di Milano, è stato creato basandosi sui loghi (ufficiali) della metropolitana di Roma, mentre il logo usato a Napoli è completamente diverso (qui).
- beh dipende dall'uso che se ne fa, se la descrizione dell'immagine è disinformante allora si cambia la descrizione, se ne viene fatto un uso improprio allora si interviene sull'uso, ma come lavoro di grafica può restare, no? Inoltre il simbolo della metropolitana di Milano è graficamente molto semplice, non penso possano esserci così tanti vincoli a livello di copyright, quindi secondo me quest'opera ha tutto il diritto di esistere, basta che non venga descritta come logo ufficiale di qualcosa. Al massimo possiamo discutere sul segnalare quanto questa sia opera derivata dal simbolo della metro di Milano. Se cambiamo descrizione e chiediamo di rinominare il file multimediale il file può restare? no? --Pava (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dobbiamo dare informazioni corrette o ci inventiamo cose che non esistono?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- e quindi solo perché è inventato va cancellato? --Pava (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD text logo . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo inventato sulla base dei loghi della metropolitana di Roma Friedrichstrasse (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ho aggiornato questa versione cancellatela pure --0ne, Two, Three (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD text logo . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It has been destroyed and no longer exists, so FOP does not apply. It now has historical significance. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Since it is now destroyed, it should be kept due to its historical significance. --Droodkin (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact of its destruction does not eliminate its copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It has been destroyed and no longer exists, so FOP does not apply. It now has historical significance. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact of its destruction does not eliminate its copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is extremely similar to two shots taken by a staff photogrpher for Getty Images - see [7] and [8]. Note the location of the other photographers in the background. Tabercil (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sorry, not a staff photographer but rather a stringer. Just the same, the image does not fall under the permission statement, as stated at Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama: "Only images taken by their own exclusive photographers is under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Other images are copyrighted." (emphasis mine). A stringer is not an exclusive photographer. Tabercil (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Tabercil's assessment. There seems to be some recent issues with BollywoodHungama's site where they have mixed up a few ineligible images in their own property category. I've asked the original contact for the ticket to check with them on this issue, if I don't see a follow up, I will contact them through the OTRS process. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S.: There appear to be more images from the Cannes FF in the unreviewed category and I expect they all need to be handled the same way. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is a Getty picture. In addition, this picture has many friends! As saying SpacemanSpiff, they are all produced from the same source "BollywoodHungama" but were not controlled by administrators. These are listed below:
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (1).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (2).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (3).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (4).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (5).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (6).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai at 65th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (7).jpg
- File:Vikram, Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bachchan attend 'Raavan' Photocall at the Salon 63rd Annual International Cannes Film Festival (8).jpg
- File:Madhur, Aishwarya Rai and Ronnie Screwvala announce 'Heroine' at 64th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (12).jpg
- File:Aishwarya Rai announces 'Heroine' at 64th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (13).jpg
- File:Madhur, Aishwarya Rai and Ronnie Screwvala announce 'Heroine' at 64th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (14).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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I hope I have not forgotten anyone! But maybe it will be interesting to look at this… here • Frantogian You talkin' to me? • 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It's clear that the images are not identical, look at the person to the subject's right, he's looking in different places. While they might be terribly unprofessional and do poor quality work, Bollywood Hungama is of professional enough level to have access for their staff photographers to be next to the Getty photographers on the red carpet. I believe we can and should assume that this is legitimate. (The alternative is a massive quagmire involving possibly thousands of images, because we operate on the principle spelled out in the BH template). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I don't think I'd argue on BH's professionalism, we had a similar issue with FilmiTadka, where they added a couple of galleries to their CC-BY section, but removed them after a couple of months as they realized that they were use-only images and not their property, it's a similar case to that IMO, we just need confirmation from BH one way or the other. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep images are not identical the link given as [1] the guy with the black bandana on the left shoulder of aishwarya is looking at the opposite direction. Link [2] aishwarya has her mouth slightly open in the getty image whereas the image uploaded has her lips sealed. User:Boseritwik
Deleted: While the subject image is not idnetical to the Getty image, it is celarly taken by the same camera within a second or two -- note that the lineup with various background objects is identical and that several of the people in the background ARE in the same position. Also, it is clear that this photographer is not covered by the BH general release because he or she is not on staff. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Foto historico (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Falta el brillo Foto historico (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
borralo ps 190.43.0.160 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep No reason given for deletion. Requesting a DR without giving a reason is a waste of Admin time. Please do not do it again. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
illiegal content 62.171.194.20 11:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Can't make sense of this. "Illegal"? I don't know about FOP in Bahrain, but it used to be a British colony and this is architecture not artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Category:BMW 320i group 5 racing version Art Car by Roy Lichtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This image is discussed in WP:Media copyright questions. As proven, the subject of this image is copyrighted, while this image is free to share and to use. I have created en:File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg under attribution conditions. While this image is free, any photo of this subject must not be allowed in Wikimedia Commons. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Utilitarian objects aren't protected by copyright in the United States. It is not entirely clear to me whether this is a utilitarian object or an artwork. It seems, however, that the car was published in 1977. Do cars generally have a copyright notice, or would it be plausible to assume that the car is {{PD-US-no notice}}? Another tricky question: BMW is a German company but Roy Lichtenstein was an American man. What is the country of origin? The item is URAA-exempt due to Lichtenstein's US citizenship (thus requiring a copyright notice for any US copyright), but if the country of origin is determined to be Germany, the car would additionally have to be {{PD-old-70}} if it is copyrightable in Germany. The same problem applies to many images in Category:BMW 320i group 5 racing version Art Car by Roy Lichtenstein. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Would this affect BMW Art Cars? --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There are two questions raised here. Is this utilitarian? I say, "No". Canvas is utilitarian, good for all sorts of things (tents, dropcloths, etc.) -- but it becomes art when a painter works on it. The car here is just the canvas. (If I were trying this case, I might also argue that a race car is not utilitarian because racing is a sport and the car cannot be used for transportation.) The second is whether there is a copyright. "Lichtenstein" does not appear in the copyright catalog for 1977, so the copyright was not registered. Therefore in order for there to be a copyright, there had to be notice -- name, year, and (c) or "Copyright". Since that is unknown, I would delete this on the Precautionary principle. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by longterm multiblocked vandal Jerry Dandridge, origin and licence and elegibility for "no threshold of originality" has to be checked El bes (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Once again not a copyright violation... Chaddy (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The image is innaccurate. Calamus of Primary One is mounted in a groove in the major digit. No feathers are attached to the humerus. Tertials are attached to the skin near the elbow. 96.54.179.222 18:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The alula arises from the thumb, some primaries can arise from the digits - http://www.shearwater.nl/index.php?file=kop126.php the key primaries arise from the carpometacarpus. Tertiaries actually arise from the humerus according to this source http://www.lab.fws.gov/fa/glossary.php - all of them of course also have some connective tissue that holds them with the skin. Shyamal (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- It turns out that what some people call as "tertials" is vague. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/auk.2008.2408 Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you can provide the right sources. The image can be corrected. Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- PS: The tertials have been modified and the fact that they do not attach to quill knobs on the humerus indicated. Shyamal (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you can provide the right sources. The image can be corrected. Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- It turns out that what some people call as "tertials" is vague. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/auk.2008.2408 Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep if corrected. Would be nice to add "carpometacarpus" instead of metacarpus, as they're fused. An arbitrary line seems to have been drawn between them here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Various derived works of the Lamborghini logo
[edit]The following photographs show the Lamborghini logo in a way which is not de minimis. As this logo appears to have been created c. 1962 or 1963, it appears to be copyrighted, making these photographs derived works.
- File:2006 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder E-Gear - Flickr - The Car Spy (20).jpg
- File:Lamborghini Badge Diablo front.JPG
- File:Lamborghini Badge.jpg
- File:Lamborghini Gallardo Coupe - Flickr - The Car Spy (2).jpg
- File:Lamborghini Gallardo Coupe E-Gear - Flickr - The Car Spy (3).jpg
- File:Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder - Flickr - The Car Spy (14).jpg
- File:Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder E-Gear - Flickr - The Car Spy (1).jpg
- File:Lamborghini Urraco - Flickr - jns001.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Please be also referenced to Commons:Deletion requests/File:LAMBORGHINI.jpg and User talk:AFBorchert#Lamborghini. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per AFBorchert. Kobac (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:King Saud Mosque
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until such time as there is a change in Saudi law.
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (1).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (2).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (21).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (24).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (25).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (26).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (27).jpg
- File:King Saud Mosque2 (28).jpg
- File:King saud palli jeddah sharafiyya.jpg
- File:Saud mosque.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}
.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}
russavia (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- So sad. I hope Saudi authorities will read this page and modify their laws accordingly so that we can host these pics in an unhindered manner. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Jiddah
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until such time as there is a change in Saudi law.
- File:Aisha mosque.jpg
- File:Al-anani.mosque.jpg
- File:Mosque on Water V2.jpg
- File:MOSQUE-ON-WATER edit.jpg
- File:MOSQUE-ON-WATER.jpg
- File:جدة.jpg
russavia (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Jiddah
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Saudi Arabia. The uploaders have not the right to publish photos of copyrighted architectonics under a free licence.
- File:Floating Mosque, Jeddah (6573494757).jpg
- File:Floating Mosque, Jeddah (6573503347).jpg
- File:Floating Mosque, Jeddah (6573519583).jpg
- File:Jeddah mosque (6573591493).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}
Ras67 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Al-Jaffali Mosque
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until such time as there is a change in Saudi law.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
There was a change in law in Saudi Arabia in 2006 or 2007. I'm not sure it may have been Royal Decree No. (5142/M B). There was a doc version of the text with pictures of the signs at this place. There is a page called "Taking Photographs at Public Places" on the SCTA site which is probably as official as it can get in Saudi Arabia. I haven't a clue how to deep link to that script driven site so one will have to search at this page or in the archives. There is a newspaper article at arabnews, 3 August 2006. This may not be pure "Freedom of Panorama" but it is alot more than the old "No photography in the public". Maybe someone can find the official text at a linkable place. Maybe a search by someone fluent in arabic would yeald better results. If this information is considered valid someone at home with the wp proceedures please undelete the other saudi photos. --T.woelk (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Without further details we cannot rely on an unseen proclamation. Note that eliminating the rule "No Photography in Public" is not FOP -- it could simply mean that you can now legally take picutres of out-of-copyright works. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15561659860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15746509615).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 34
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Arcs de la Mosquée Hassan-II.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - Grande Mosquée Hassan II.jpg
- File:Mosque Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco, 摩洺哥.jpg
- File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg
- File:Mosquée Hassan II -2.jpg
- File:Mustapha ennaimi - 23768064204.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg is previously published and would need a separate VRT permission from the photographer even if we obtained a general permission for the mosque. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 35
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Casablanca, Morocco (51256636929).jpg
- File:الدار البيضاء مسجد الحسن الثاني.jpg
- File:جامع الحسن الثاني.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque
Violates COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. es:Mezquita Sheikh Zayed tells that the building was finished in 2007.
Some of the images of people might be de minimis.
- File:Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed Mosque - Prayer Hall 01.jpg
- File:Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed Mosque - Prayer Hall 02.jpg
- File:Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed Mosque.jpg
- File:Beautiful Chandelier.jpg
- File:Crystal Chandelier in the Entrance Hall of Sheikh Zayed Mosque.jpg
- File:Defense.gov News Photo 100311-D-7203C-002.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-003.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-004.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-005.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-006.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-017.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-018.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-019.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-021.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-022.jpg
- File:Defense.gov photo essay 100311-D-7203C-023.jpg
- File:Minaret Schaich-Zayid-Moschee.jpg
- File:One of the 7 imported chandeliers..jpg
- File:Opulence and Majestic.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque Courtyard Arcade 01.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque Courtyard Arcade 02.jpg
- File:Soft beautiful carpet..jpg
- File:Swarovski Crystal Chandelier in Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed Mosque 01.jpg
- File:Swarovski Crystal Chandelier in Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed Mosque 02.jpg
- File:The Entrance Hall of Sheikh Zayed Mosque 01.jpg
- File:The Entrance Hall of Sheikh Zayed Mosque 02.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- We seem to be stuck in a merry-go-round of images of this mosque being deleted and then a whole load more being uploaded again. Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Sheikh Zayed Mosque only happened in July. If the category is kept because of some images being de minimis, then a note should be put-up on the category page about the lack of FOP - that might of least slow down the amount of inappropriate uploads. CT Cooper · talk 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've added {{Nouploads}}. Let's see if that helps. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque
See discussions immediately above. These images weren't included in the previous nomination because they hadn't been added to the relevant category when I nominated the other files for deletion.
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Entrance Gate.JPG
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Side View.JPG
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque taken from the opposite side..JPG
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque taken from the roadside. 01.JPG
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque taken from the roadside. 03.JPG
- File:The sun setting behind the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque..JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in United Arab Emirates.
- File:Abu Dhabi- Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque (14281040608).jpg
- File:Grand mosque Abu Dhabi (44438067762).jpg
- File:Oasis of Dignity.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque (37567364540).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque (37567370080).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque (37825596581).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque (52566909455).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi (15424401753).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi (15856605778).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi (15858086109).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi (16018361986).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15421779894.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15424399703.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15424413633.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15424487883.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15424491923.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15856606508.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15856767520.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15856771020.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15856856690.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15856858080.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858000519.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858082909.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858084459.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858084649.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858277597.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858281077.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858284077.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 15858367487.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16018267226.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16018268376.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16018270486.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16018271336.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16018274396.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16043350652.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16043434852.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16043436562.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16044044755.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16044048725.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16044136375.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16044137955.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque @ Abu Dhabi - 16044141545.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi DSF3637-HDR FUJIFILM X-T1 + Mitakon Zhongyi Lens Turbo Focal II Reducer Adapter for M42 + M42 Tokina RMC 17mm f3.5 (37961413742).jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 1.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 10.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 11.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 12.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 13.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 14.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 15.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 16.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 17.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 18.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 19.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 2.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 20.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 21.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 22.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 23.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 24.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 25.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 3.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 4.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 5.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 6.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 7.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 8.jpg
- File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque 9.jpg
- File:Sunset at Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque.jpg
- File:The Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grand Mosque, Dubai
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until/if UAE law changes, or the building falls out of copyright.
russavia (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Dubai
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until/if UAE law changes, or the building falls out of copyright.
- File:Dubai Grand Mosque 03.jpg
- File:Flickr - omar chatriwala - Bastakiya district view.jpg
- File:Rashidiya Grand Mosque.jpg
- File:Windtower Heritage Village Dubai March 2008.JPG
russavia (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment One file has been allread been kept compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubai Grand Mosque 03.jpg. --JuTa 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately JuTa, that file should never have been kept under that reasoning. russavia (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I have tried to establish if the mosques depicted are out of copyright or not. Dubai Grand Mosque was built in 1850 (meaning the original architects work must be PD by now), but restoration work in 1952 and 1999 has probably compromised its public domain status. There is not enough information on File:Flickr - omar chatriwala - Bastakiya district view.jpg to establish its copyright status, meaning delete by default. I can't find the build date for Rashidiya Grand Mosque, nor the Dubai Heritage Village, though I suspect they were recent constructions - a re-construction in the latter case. CT Cooper · talk 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This DR does not cover the category, although perhaps it should be kept even if empty given that there must surely be mosques in Dubai that are old enough to be PD. CT Cooper · talk 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Did not delete the Category. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Abu Dhabi
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until/if UAE law changes, or the building falls out of copyright.
russavia (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Fujairah
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, therefore these photos can't be hosted on Commons until/if UAE law changes, or the building falls out of copyright.
russavia (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Only serves prulient interests," Out of scope. No indication of model age or consent. Violates COM:NUDE. Stillwaterising (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. While "pulient interests" may be a matter of personal opinion, image is low quality and unused. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only serves prulient interests ? No, it illustrates masturbation and therefore it's in the scope. No model consent ? It was in use on the model's own Flickr page. Low quality ? Yes but it shows an interesting aspect of masturbation because of the movement on it. Unused ? Unvalid argument, the question is "could it be used" and the answer is yes ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Amateur erotica. Poor quality image, delete per COM:PORN. --JN466 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree with the above users. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, neither the age nor consent are required by law, nominator seems to be pursuing a personal agenda against images (including those in use on multiple projects and clearly educational) with any hint of visible bodies...even if they just happen to include a bikini. AGF seems to have gone out the window with Jimbo's new jihad against "distasteful" corners of reality. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Why are you personal attacking people? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings. --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the quality and the purpose favour a speedy deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, file is now in use on the Wikibooks project on the book Sexual Health as the only photo-illustration of non-penetrative sex through mutual masturbation. Scope issues are now clearly met. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We're all so obsessed with prudery or opposing it that we don't even notice that a picture is breaking important Commons rules. The woman in the picture is clearly identifiable, the picture is taken in a very private situation and these no hint of permission from the subject (see Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people). We might have considered pixellating the face, but if you check on Flickr you find that the original has gone along with its uploading account: so the photo's quite probably a copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no rule against subjects being identifiable, the vast majority of our images are identifiable.
- There is more than a "hint of permission from the subject", the subject is the one who uploaded it to Flickr (as well as other similar photographs of herself) -- unless you mean we need a consent from the owner of the penis? In which case...we don't.
- And finally, I have no idea why a photo no longer being available of Flickr could possibly mean it's "quite probably a copyright violation"...all our Flickr images (including this one) have a specific template because they frequently disappear from Flickr. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- She is indentifiable but the picture was available on her personal Flickr account, so that counts as consent, doesn't it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure that this was in fact her account? The account's disappearance means I can't check anything but it's a rather suspicious event in its own right. There are people around like Bi Amy who've been around along time and clearly do like to produce this sort of stuff, but I suspect a lot of nudie shots on Flickr are not what they claim to be:- (Copyvios or girlfriends posted without their consent, even in the the subject's own name). --Simonxag (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- And I can suspect that many OTRS permissions are faked by people who register similar eMail addresses and try to link it to the subject's name falsely and then send an eMail with it...but unless you have any evidence that Amy's ex-boyfriend is impersonating her online...we assume good faith. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure that this was in fact her account? The account's disappearance means I can't check anything but it's a rather suspicious event in its own right. There are people around like Bi Amy who've been around along time and clearly do like to produce this sort of stuff, but I suspect a lot of nudie shots on Flickr are not what they claim to be:- (Copyvios or girlfriends posted without their consent, even in the the subject's own name). --Simonxag (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Could User:Stillwaterising fullfill his/her/its prulient[sic!] interests somewhere else, please?
Kept. Only photo of real people in category. Yes it's a bad image but we don't have any better ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There may be some COM:IDENT issue here. We have a few other handjob photos so it's not an essential photo russavia (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Identifiable person engaging in a compromising activity. The purpose of Commons is not to embarrass or humiliate our own contributors or worse, other people. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Bahrain. Hence, this photo is unable to be hosted on Commons until the law is changed. russavia (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep no copyrightable architectural features shown, the inclusion of the kfc man is incidental to the overall image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File has been deleted. INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
