Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_schwarz_2012-03-16_16-51-37_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_weiss_2012-03-16_18-56-03_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Évariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
added wrong picture Cheng111 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Wvk (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- false identification, it is mie kari, not laksa --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I placed a remane request to the description page. --JuTa 08:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Moved the file. Materialscientist (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The description says Photo taken and supplied by Brian Voon Yee Yap.. Nominating for deletion since {{No permission}} tag was removed. Sreejith K (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: My mistake. From the user page of User:Yewenyi, it is clear that the user himself is Brian Voon Yee Yap. Sreejith K (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC) from JETIX so not own work Edoderoo (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC) probably crop from a screen shot of tv Edoderoo (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC) probably a crop from a tv-capture, like the other images recently uploaded Edoderoo (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC) image also here ... unlikely to be own work. Edoderoo (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of http://www.platinumsuites.com.bd/galleries/restaurants/images/bistro_2.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, "© Platinum Suites, 2012" per site front page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope dancing bubbles Chesdovi (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Images of people dancing in bubbles are not necessarily out of scope, but the uploader's title and description make it clear the purpose of the image is a vanity insult/personal prank. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
cartoon of a naked black christian, within scope? unused Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please don't describe people wearing swimsuits or short pants as "naked". However it is a copyright violation of cartoon character Pišta Lakatoš, so speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
i dont want anmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romulobraps (talk • contribs) 2012-05-29T12:43:59 (UTC)
Invalid: The file talk page doesn't exist. For a discussion about the file itself, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romulo Baba.jpg instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Uploading a new one. Kyono (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as a duplicate of File:Renaissance Sportive de Berkane (RSB).png. --32X (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Uploading a new one. Kyono (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
_schwarz_2012-03-16_16-51-37_(P7000).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_schwarz_2012-03-16_16-51-37_(P7000).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work, background images and icons are copyrighted by Apple and other software companies Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
_schwarz_2012-03-16_16-51-37_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
_schwarz_2012-03-16_16-51-37_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
Screenshot of copyrighted software El bes (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software El bes (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software El bes (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software, user is possibly multiblocked Jerry D. El bes (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software, user is possibly multiblocked Jerry D. El bes (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software, copyrighted photo, user is possibly multiblocked Jerry D. El bes (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- wrong name --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep please use template {{Rename}} instead. --JuTa 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: please use template {{Rename}} instead. Sreejith K (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- wrong name --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Please use template {{Rename}} instead. --JuTa 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: please use template {{Rename}} instead. Sreejith K (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
British company; complex enough to be eligible for copyright (see COM:TOO#UK). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong delete British logos = copyrighted. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
is this in scope? Chesdovi (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope? Chesdovi (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
not sure of this photo is helpful, it is a good quality close up though. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan low-res personal photo, uncategorized since December; no other contributions by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, low quality Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
personal photo unused, oos Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
useless photo , not cool either Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
what is says:Advertisment Chesdovi (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion/spam Infrogmation (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
broken image Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
who is he? not cropped too Chesdovi (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope 99of9 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope horse riding Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope webpage ss Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope "in my room"!!! Chesdovi (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
useless as no nationality given Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
low quality test (for 18+ male viewing only) (see also two further uploads by same user). Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Poor cut-out from another image —innotata 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - what is the red circle for anyway? Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably the uploader wants to highlight the phallus. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (badGIF, low resolution), better alternatives available in Category:Dinitrogen trioxide. Leyo 14:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as chemically incorrect with respect to resonance. The left N=O is essentially a real double-bond, not delocalized like the O–N–O on the right (see bond-lengths at File:Dinitrogen-trioxide-2D-geometry.png) and the N–N is a single-bond (resonance of left (would be octet problem to have simple N–O π overlap, and the left N lone-pair is 90° mispositioned to resonate into right O–N–O system (see all-planar geometry at File:Dinitrogen-trioxide-xtal-3D-vdW.png). DMacks (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 12:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, better alternatives in Category:Isopropanol. Leyo 14:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. It is unused and superior equivalents should be used instead. Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, better alternatives available in Category:Tartaric acid. Leyo 14:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. It is unused and superior equivalents should be used instead. Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Man's portrait without his explicit permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osado (talk • contribs) 2012-03-14T19:36:18 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image, way too blurry for any value CutOffTies (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Better have a lower quality image than no image of him. --Denniss (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand that logic. . Is there a policy or guideline that supports that something is better than nothing or is this just your opinion? IMO Common sense is that a terrible quality photo disparages the subject, is embarrassing for the project, and most important, doesn't help those accessing the content. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I feel quite the opposite. Better to have an image that fairly represents what a person actually looks like than to have one that is embarrassingly bad. It's obvious that if you were to place images on a continuum from wonderful to so poor they're unrecognizable, everyone would agree that there is some arbitrary point on the bad end where it would not be worth having an image (think smeared blur you can't even recognize at the terminal end, that we only know is supposed to be a human being because of the file description). There would certainly be images which would fall into a middle gray area where some would say it's good enough, and some would not, but I think this image is pretty far down the line. I also think there's a BLP issue involved here—I don't know if that is a policy that the Commons cottons to, but I believe in it strongly. A bad photograph on public display can be terribly upsetting to the person depicted. And this photograph is not just wierdly mis-colored and out of focus but it caught Mr. Daniels in a poor way which photographs sometimes do; it misrepresents the way he actually looks. For that reason its use is counter to the goal of being educationally useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Image quality wasn't that bad to begin with, but it has been rendered and updated. It has been very difficult to find a free photo of the actor in question. Tinton5 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The image is in scope, for it is in use on several projects. If a higher quality image of the actor becomes available, we can revisit this issue, but right now COM:SCOPE is met, and that's all we worry about on Commons russavia (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Recent copyrighted building, no freedom of panorama in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Recent copyrighted building, no freedom of panorama in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Duplicate copy of existing image File:368.JPG, plus the title "italy" is wrong as this image is from Barcelona --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Please use {{Rename}} template. Sreejith K (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its copyright status notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its copyright status notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Higher resolution is found here. Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- CV: [1]--shizhao (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20110614/04525736.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Smells like cheese.
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
no FOP in this case Polarlys (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - FoP does not apply. Lymantria (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Identifying this as consisting out of simple geometric shapes is not reasonable in any way. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Beyond theshold of originality Lymantria (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Keepslearn45
[edit]
Out of scope. Personal photos. Commons is not Myspace. – JBarta (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Wvk (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Shaven1hairless
[edit]
Out of scope. Not reasonably useful for educational purposes. Also per Commons:Nudity – JBarta (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Nudity can be within commons scope, but I see no potential illustrative use in these images. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/Infrogmation --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zlcresearchinstitute (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Unneeded logo --Sreejith K (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 07:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This image includes multiple images from this website: http://scr3.golem.de/?d=1106/IBM-100&a=84225 These images seem originally from IBM PR department, they're not the uploader own works.. 石 (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a photo of the rally. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a photo of a car rally. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This image is from an existing work: http://news.yesky.com/128/30166628.shtml http://image.tianjimedia.com/uploadImages/2011/167/BCZ90NFRY2YF.jpg 石 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a hoax page and is not factually acurate at all. 89.206.193.82 13:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Anatomically incorrect (needs wings) Penyulap ☏ 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This particular bumblebee had his wings clipped in September 2011, so given that this image is post-September 2011, I believe that it is anatomically correct with no wings. russavia (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me so I have no objections either way. I'm just a little concerned other editors might mistake it for an attack image if it has no wings. Penyulap ☏
Comment - I really would love to know how this is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a widespread Russian meme of calling Medvedev a bumblebee (and portraying him as such). It appeared after his former fellow-student recalled that Medvedev stunningly sang Russian song "Мохнатый шмель" - "Shaggy Bumblebee" (based on Rudyard Kipling's "The Gypsy Trail") on their friend's wedding while dressed as Gypsy. Here are some publications (on Russian): [2] and some imagery (with and without wings): [3]. Free renditions of well-known political caricatures are withing scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Putin on the Ritz.jpg. --M5 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure Matt, a search of Runet reveals all. Putin - krab; Medvedev - shmel; Lenin - grib is but one of the many memes to come out of Runet. So there's your scope. However, I wouldn't be opposed to someone overwriting my image with an improved version, coz my MS Paint skills ain't shit! ;) russavia (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well I'm in, slap together enough nonsense to look like it is the same size as a stubbish article and I'm at your service. I wouldn't be the craziest thing I've ever drawn, not even this month. Shall we say half a dozen bare url refs and more text than this deletion request finishes with ? Penyulap ☏ 23:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: *sighs* No reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
What is this? Kobac (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Answering your questipn see deletion request that was opened 4 days and closed three days ago. Tm (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice. Then close and keep. Kobac (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Done -mattbuck (Talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice. Then close and keep. Kobac (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
_weiss_2012-03-16_18-56-03_(P7000).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_weiss_2012-03-16_18-56-03_(P7000).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work, background images and icons are copyrighted by Apple and other software companies Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
_weiss_2012-03-16_18-56-03_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
_weiss_2012-03-16_18-56-03_(P7000).JPG){kind=link}
Complex enough to be eligible for copyright in Chile; see COM:TOO#Chile. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from Brookhaven National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its image licensing policy. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- migrate back to en wikipedia with "non free nc". do not delete. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is my personal image I am not log in first because my user are block there are unable to used so i am not log in there is reason to used my user page Okey Please Remove Early I really Thank ful to You
it is my personal image and i want to delete
- As I wrote you (below your initial speedy request) already 5 days ago: If you are really the uploader, then why don't you log-in before requesting deletion and why do you still use this image on your userpage? --Túrelio (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Personal image used on the User's page. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Quote: i am log in and i want to delete this image.it is my personal image Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Shabaz (talk • contribs) 2012-02-27T16:35:34 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: personal image, uploader request. -- Common Good (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've uploaded this file before, and was deleted because of copyvio, even after using the PD-DPRK template. Fer1997 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "Current news reports" (시사보도물/時事報道物) presumably refers exclusively to textual material. This is not text. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The full text of the copyright law is "Documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.", so it's not just text, is anything in the document. Fry1989 eh? 00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the full text, that's just the English mistranslation. Read the original Korean text instead, which is quite different: 법령, 결정, 지시 같은 국가관리문건과 시사보도물, 통보자료 같은 것은 저작권의 대상으로 되지 않는다./法令, 決定, 指示 같은 國家管理文件과 時事報道物, 通報資料 같은 것은 著作權의 對象으로 되지 않는다.--Stefan4 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the full text of the license here on Commons, where you specifically excluded the qualifier "Documents", which completely changes whether or not this would be exempt from protection under NK Law. "Documents" is a lot broader definition than just "texts", which the license does not say. That means that photographs would be included, whereas if the license just says "texts of state management such as...", then they would not. If it's a mistranslation, you have to prove that and take it up with those on Commons who write the licenses, but you can't just claim the license says one thing when it currently says the exact opposite. Per the current license, it is a keep. Fry1989 eh? 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I specifically excluded the word "documents" simply because the word "documents" (called "textual documents" in the original Korean text) only refers to "ordinances, decisions or directives", as clearly indicated in the Korean text. You don't think that this is some kind of legal text, do you? --Stefan4 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't read Korean, and don't trust most online translators because they usually give a rough go at it. All I can do is base it off our Commons license, which currently says "documents" which would include photographs and any other illustrations of a "State management". As I said, if that translation is wrong, you need to take it up with those who write the licenses. Fry1989 eh? 05:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I specifically excluded the word "documents" simply because the word "documents" (called "textual documents" in the original Korean text) only refers to "ordinances, decisions or directives", as clearly indicated in the Korean text. You don't think that this is some kind of legal text, do you? --Stefan4 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the full text of the license here on Commons, where you specifically excluded the qualifier "Documents", which completely changes whether or not this would be exempt from protection under NK Law. "Documents" is a lot broader definition than just "texts", which the license does not say. That means that photographs would be included, whereas if the license just says "texts of state management such as...", then they would not. If it's a mistranslation, you have to prove that and take it up with those on Commons who write the licenses, but you can't just claim the license says one thing when it currently says the exact opposite. Per the current license, it is a keep. Fry1989 eh? 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the full text, that's just the English mistranslation. Read the original Korean text instead, which is quite different:
- Keep --Infestor (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo: http://www.enseignement-prive.fr/primaire/691-ecole-massillon.php Ralgis 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The copyright has been challenged by OTRS 2012053010000438. If the uploader wishes to counter-claim copyright then they would need to write to OTRS from a verifiable email address and explain the context of their claim of copyright. Fæ (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. I'm the original uploader. The picture was taken by a friend, and uploaded with his permission, but apparently Jack Starr doesn't like this picture so my friend told me if we could change it. So I did.--Neo139 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It looks like the Flickr uploader is not the original author. Ralgis 04:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. This image is author's sсan of the book «BTH Reminiscences: Sixty Years of Progress», 1946) also is placed on Flikr under the license Creative Commons (Attribution 2.0 Generic, the CC BY 2.0) that allows to use it without any restrictions in Wiki. Therefore copyright isn't violated and I see no reason to remove this image. If you have a different opinion, please explain. Thank you in advance.VladiMens (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment What is the copyright status of the book "BTH Reminiscences: Sixty Years of Progress"? Books from 1946 may well still be under copyright. If the original work can be shown to be out of copyright for one reason or another, fine; if not, images from the book cannot stay on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I was about to nominate this for deletion on the same grounds. There is no reason to believe a scanned image from an under copyright book is in the public domain. Likewise, there is no reason that at PD image would be released under the creative commons license. I feel that this is a copyvio --Guerillero 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence source is suitable for Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment – What exactly makes you think that a portrait of contemporary Christian music artist is out of scope?—Bill william comptonTalk 20:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File is currently tagged with {{PD-Denmark}} and dated to 1955. Thus the uploader consider this photo not to be a work. However it is a studio photo where a single subject is clearly posing. To me that does "display artistic merit or originality" meaning it is a work and thus copyrightable in Denmark until 2015. heb [T C E] 02:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. How the photo appears to us is irrelevant here, relevant is how it is treated by the Danish copyright law. I have briefly looked through it [4], and it basically says that all photographic works are protected for 50 years from the production date. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to forget §63:
- 63.–(1) The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death or with regard to the works mentioned in section 6 after the year of death of the last surviving author. With regard to cinematographic works the copyright, however, shall last for 70 years after the year of death of the last of the following persons to survive:
- (i) the principal director;
- (ii) the author of the script;
- (iii) the author of the dialogue; and
- (iv) the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic work.
- (2) Where a work is made public without indication of the author’s name, generally known pseudonym or signature, the copyright shall last for 70 years after the year in which the work was made public. Where a work consists of parts, volumes, instalments, issues or episodes a separate term of protection shall run for each item.
- (3) If within the period mentioned the author is indicated in accordance with section 7 or if it is established that he had died before the work was made public, the duration of copyright shall be calculated in accordance with subsection (1).'
- (4) Copyright in a work of unknown authorship that has not been made public shall last 70 years after the end of the year in which the work was created.
- §70, which I believe you are referring to, is for photographs without artistic merit. However the definition of "artistic merit" is not precise, and as such is a subjective evaluation in each case (hence this discussion). On the Danish Wikipedia, we had this exact same discussion previously (in Danish) and concluded that portrait photos as a rule of thumb are photographs with artistic merit ("works"). Being full aware, that this is not Danish Wikipedia, it is however the same legislation in subject and the discussion also seems relevant here. I still believe that a portrait photo, where the subject is clearly posing, is a "display [of] artistic merit or originality" and thus covered by the Danish copyright law §63 and not §70. In kind regards heb [T C E] 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive my laziness, I shall use you as an expert on this topic and a guide. Could you please show where does the law says that §63 applies to photographic works, and where does it say that §70 applies to "photographs without artistic merit"? I can't find it either in your quote or in the linked pdf. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Due to personal problems in my family my brain is a bit over loaded and may come to bad conclusions at the moment. But I will give it a try: § 63 mention "et værk" (a work) and those are protected for 70 yrs. § 70 mention "et fotografisk billede" (a photographic picture) and pictures are protected for 50 yrs. The link between these two is § 70, 3, where there is a reference to § 1. § 1 mention "fotografisk værk" (photographic work). So a picture could both be "a work" and "a photographic picture". However, I can't think of a descision by the Danish courts confirming that. --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know of any court decisions either, though the white paper for the current major form of the Danish author's rights legislation (link - this is the only on-line link I have been able to find, it does match my offcial hardcopy version though), and a declaration from the Counsel to the Treasury (link), that the wither a photography is a photographic work (§63) or just a photography (§70) is a judgement based on the "the effort behind the photograph, given on an intellectual, artistic judgement of several options, eg. in relation to composition, cropping, choice of subject, perspective, angle of view, depth of field and lighting." Further it is stated that "since in almost all human made photographs, one or more of these options have been judged, almost all photographs are protected as works" (my translation in both cases). Examples of photographs not protected as works, are surveillance photographs and X-rays for medical use, where each photograph are typically taken without intellectual, artistic judging of composition, cropping, choice of subject, perspective, angle of view, depth of field or lighting.
- This should all bee seen in the context of the history of the Danish author's rights legislation, which in it current major form, dates back to 1995, where it was a merge of two previous legislations: One protecting the author's rights of literary and artistic works and one protecting the author's rights of photographs. As such the term "artistic work" is relatively new and thus "plain photographs" (§70) from before 1970-01-01 are in fact not protected (but {{PD-Denmark50}} - see also Template talk:PD-Denmark50#Something_is_wrong_here for that part). PD-Denmark50 usage shows a large number of these. It is however important to remember, that it is in each case a subjective evaluation.
- @Materialscientist, On a personal note, I sense sarcasm in your previous remark. If I am mistaken, the my apologies, but I do find that the use of sarcasm inappropriate and slightly offensive, when all I'm trying to do, is to get decent and useful debate, wither or not this image is a "photographic work" or just a "photography" (and thus should be deleted or preserved on commons respectively). In kind regards heb [T C E] 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah no, no slight intended; I do appreciate your (both) efforts to clarify the Danish law, and I prefer to have primary legal information before editorial judgement (of the law or the photo itself). The concept of originality threshold is known, and this is what you described above. My first problem is this: (my reading of Danish is very poor, thus I use English versions or Google translation, which misses the subtleties)
- 1) the law [5] only discusses photographs in §70, implying all photos are in PD 50 after their creation. On the contrary, this interpretation [6] basically says, that practically all photos are PD 70 years after death of the author. In other words, practically all images made after 1942 and targeted with {{PD-Denmark50}} are affected; and thus instead of this image, {{PD-Denmark50}} itself should be nominated for deletion to have a wider discussion, as done with {{PD-Austria}}, {{PD-Germany}}, etc.
- 2) I got a feeling that some of these linked texts are (or contain) proposals and discussions. For example, [7]. Thus the question is where is the actual law, where are whitepapers, and what power do they have? Do we have precedents where the law was applied to protect photographs beyond 50 years? Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- One of the problems with legal documents, are that they are seldom officially translated and thus we are back at either Google Translate or contributors translations. Your translation of this interpretation is correct, and since it is made by the Danish Counsel to the Treasury, so it carries some weight.
- 1) Your reading of the UNESCO paper is slightly off, as §1 does also deal with photographies, but here termed as "photographic work". One could simplified say that §70 is a paragraph that catches all photographs, which are not covered by §1 - meaning they are not a "photographic work". So a photography has a protection time of at least 50 years no matter what (§70), but if it is considered a "photographic work" per §1, then the protection is "extended" to 70 years (§63). The legal order of precedence does in fact make it the other way though: In theory all photographs are covered by §1 (protected for 70 years), unless one can argue that they are in fact not "photographic works" and thus only covered for 50 years.
- 2) This link does in fact contains the proposal and white paper. However the white paper (in Danish betænkning), which is also referenced in this interpretation, does in fact contain some guidance as to what is the intentions of a law as well as recommendations for the members of the parliament on what to vote. The betænkning is usually made by a committee, lead by a politician and containing various experts. Private organisations and people are also invited to make comments to it. Once this has been done, a law proposal is made by the relevant minister. The proposal contains both the proposed text of the law, as well as the documents of the betænkning. The proposed law then have to be voted in favor of three times (slight adjustments are allowed between each vote) and if the third vote is in favor of, the law comes into effect. Following the law coming into effect, the relevant ministry publishes an updated betænkning containing the original betænkning, all adjustments and the final version. The reason for this is, that judges are expected to look at the intentions of the law, if something can be interpreted in more ways. Thus the intentions does in fact also contain some legal value, but not as much as the actual legal text, which especially our tax-legislation suffers from :)
- One of the problems with photographs being just "photographs" or "photographic works" is that there is not court decisions (that I have been able to find anyway) on that subject. Most court decisions of photographies deals with indemnification/compensation of more contemporary photographs (§83), and doesn't even deal with the entire §70/§63 issue. I actually found this (however so slight) precedent on Commons where it was decided that another Danish portrait portrait photo should be deleted. It is (still) my opinion, that the choice of background, posture, lightning (and perhaps even dress of the subject) provided enough intellectual, artistic merit for it to be a "photographic work".
- When I worked at a photographer during high-school I part-took in portrait photography (of everything from dogs, to babies and grownups). It was rarely just people walking in, sitting down and then have a photo taken, but usually we choose the background based on what the subject wanted or wanted to wear of clothes, choose the lighting depending on the colour of hair, usage of glasses and such. In the end came, directing the posture which was also sometimes a bit tricky. We did of course also the passport photo thing, where people came in, ordered the photo and then got it (the author's right is in fact with the person who orders it in that case, but that is a different story). In kind regards heb [T C E] 07:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive my laziness, I shall use you as an expert on this topic and a guide. Could you please show where does the law says that §63 applies to photographic works, and where does it say that §70 applies to "photographs without artistic merit"? I can't find it either in your quote or in the linked pdf. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to forget §63:
Keep I find this deletion request very strange, especially in light of this much more recent discussion and decision. As long as no guidelines exist (court rulings) as to the interpretation of "artistic merit" under Danish law, Commons should use the widest possible interpretation of it. Furthermore, Reimert Kehlet, the photographer responsible for this similar photo is basically considered a businessman and an amateur, not an artist: "Kehlet var næppe selv nogen fremragende fotograf..." ("Kehlet himself was hardly an excellent photographer...", from Dansk Biografisk Leksikon). Therefore, I also find Heb's subjective judgment of the photo's appearance irrelevant. Subjective discussion of PD-Denmark50 photographs is dilettante jurisprudence, and leads nowhere. --Urbandweller (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
_by_Julius_Folkmann.jpg){kind=link}
- First, I'd like to state, that I have never claimed to be an trained expert on Danish author's rights legislation. On the other hand, I don't think that we have any present on Commons, so I guess we have to do, with whatever "dilettante jurisprudence" we can come up with. If you can contribute with someone, who actually are an expert on this subject, I'm sure it will be appreciated by a lot of people.
- Second, I think you nail (your side of) our difference of opinion quite well: I do believe that Commons should use the safest possible of interpretation - not the widest possible interpretation. From my perspective this is a way to ensure that the Commons is as free as possible. Having a number of images where, we are basically awaiting one or more court ruling(s) as to the interpretation of "artistic merit" under Danish law, does not harmonize with my perception of "as free as posibble". I'd rather walk on the more safe line in this case.
- Third, I am in no way on a "crusade" against, neither PD-Denmark nor PD-Denmark50. I am however of the opinion, that any licensing template should, be as specific and allow as little room for subjective interpretations as possible. One way to achieve this, is also to have good discussions and create a form of precedence for later. Initially I didn't find any, later I found Commons:Deletion requests/File:HOLange2.jpg and now I also know of the later decision. I believe in open discussions, that brings us closer to a firm established line and thus I don't think it is as big a problem to "wake up the discussion" once more, especially since nobody in previous discussions seems to have brought in the interpretation of the Danish Counsel to the Treasury, which I assume have more legal expertise at hand, than any of us present here. Its' just a new angle. Not a crusade. In kind regards heb [T C E] 09:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any point in consulting legal experts, as they are also at a loss as to the definitions (e.g. "Selve sondringen mellem fotografibeskyttelse og værksbeskyttelse er ikke belyst i retspraksis. En klar definition findes heller ikke." and "Grænserne for værkshøjde fastlægges i domstolenes praksis." (both texts in Danish).
- Given your stance, I suggest that you nominate the template for deletion, not just random photographs. I don't want to upload 100s of PD-Denmark50 photographs just to see them deleted someday. Besides, I don't agree that deletion discussions should be based on "gut feelings" of the random contributors participating in the discussion on a given day. They should be based on quantitative material (copyright laws or Commons policies). --Urbandweller (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In one of the links above "Kammeradvokaten" (the lawyer used by the Danish Government in official cases) states that it is better to be safe than sorry and almost everything except for photos taken by surveillance cameras are photographic works.
- I think that the reason for this "better safe than sorry" attitude is that the paper is about when it is safe for a public authority to allow others to use photos etc. that the public authority is in possession of but where third parties have rights to under the Copyright Act.
- I find no basis for the conclusion that "almost everything are photographic works" in the law and the remarks in the "betænkning". It is said that choices is one of the elements that could make it a photographic work it does not say that everything where there choises are possible makes it a work. We have the same discussion when we judge if something is PD-ineligible. If I draw a circle I make a choise of colour, size, where on the paper to draw it and how thick the line should be. But I do not think that my circle would be a work of art. In my opinion we should judge if the choises made by the photographer are so artistic and creative that it is something that not every other photographer could do. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of the paper is important to keep in mind, yes. The discussion at da-wp drew it conclusions on the same bases: the participants wanted to be safe.
- I suppose portrait photography mostly is about getting the job done, quite seldom about making art. Although there are lots of decisions to be made in photography, they are probably often done following best practises, not necessarily the artistic visions of the photographer. I think the Nobel folks want a good portrait, not a discussion about how well the artist caught the spirit of the subject (which is common when you choose a painting instead). In an earlier Nobel DR somebody noted the photographer was anonymous - if you want art, you probably also tell the name of the artist.
- The last line from MGA73 is also how I understand the law. Anyone can take a picture of the local town hall to example without thinking particular much about it. But with a portrait like this the photographer had to think and make choises, and the person on the picture may had wishes and requests as well. All things which mean that other could not just take a similar picture. This in opposite to the example with the town hall picture, which everyone around with a camera could take. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Denmark has a high threshold of originality, see COM:TOO#Denmark for examples. The special legislation for photographs was meant to protect professional photographers, because in general photos do not reach the threshold of being a creative work. This is similar to other Nordic countries, there was a conscious coordination of copyright law. Making is portrait is just a photographer's daily job. It gets 50 years protection by law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yet the photo of the naked girl shown here (NSFW) was granted exclusive rights per Danish Author's legislation §2 in a court decision in 2010, so that is a photographic work and has 70 years of protection by law. Had it been just a photograph, exclusive right would have been granted per §70. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 07:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The court did not discuss whether the photo is a work or not, as the rights are the same for new photos. The rights are defined in §2 (§70 refers to §2, it does not repeat them). The court also avoids talking about works or photographic images, but talks about "the photos" and "the images". --LPfi (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are missing one slight, but very important detail. § 70 grants exclusive rights (eneret) to "photographic images". § 2.1 grants exclusive rights to works (including "photographic works"). That is in fact why, § 70.3 does not state that the provisions of § 2.1 are also applicable on photographic images. On page 12 it states that "the court finds, that the plaintiff's authors right has been violated, as the plaintiff's, per §2, exclusive material has been utilized" (da: "Retten finder, at sagsøgerens ophavsret er krænket, da der er sket en benyttelse af sagsøgers ophavsretligt beskyttede materialer, jf. ophavsretslovens §2"). Had it been a photographic work it would have been § 70. Also if you look at the resume from Bender von Haller Dragsted of the case (Bender von Haller Dragsted is a Danish lawyer company, that has specialized in IP-rights), they states that "plaintiff's exclusive right per §2 has been violated" (da: "sagsøgers eneret efter ophavsretslovens § 2 var krænket"). So no the court did not discuss it, but they did take a stance on it. --heb [T C E] 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- While I do follow your logic, Heb, I think that you stretching that conclusion just a bit too far. The references are not to §2 in its entirety and not to part 1 of §2 either, and since publication, public performance etc. are defined in parts 2 to 4 they very much in defining what the exclusive rights are. I note that Bender von Haller Dragsted does not seem to state that this anything to do with the threshold of originality or §1. Neither does Peter Schønning in the 5th edition of Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer from 2011. The only court case he lists on the topic is one where someone claimed to have the rights to some photographs of furniture under §1 (p. 125, U2011.115H, [8] and [9]), but where the court ruled that some similar pictures wheren't copyright violations without stating why (if they were below the threshold, not similar enough or otherwise). I think it would be a very surprising conclusion that the image you linked above would be considered a work, so I would prefer a clearer statement from an expert that that is what the court case means, before we start deleting images on the basis of comparisons with it. Peter Alberti (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep To quote a quote in Peter Schønning (2011, 5th edition) Ophavsretsloven med kommentarer (written after the case Heb links above), p. 125, a photograph is considered a work if "det er ophavsmandens egen intellektuelle frembringelse og afspejler hans personlighed, …" ("it is the author's own intellectual creation and reflects his personality, …"). That it has to reflect the photographer's personality is not just a high threshold but a very high threshold, and it is not met by a skilful lighting or choice of background colour. Although I am stepping into the zone of what Urbandweller correctly describes as "dilettante jurisprudence", I see none of the photographer's personality in the photograph, only his skill, and vote keep on that basis. Peter Alberti (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have never seen this "definition" of a work before, but we probably can't find any people better versed in the subject, than Schønning so a quote from him is certainly something to be weighted in. With that in mind, I agree that the above portrait photo, is not a likely "photographic work" and thus I consider that any possibility of significant doubt about the freedom of "simple" portrait photos, older than 50 years taken in Denmark being void. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 03:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, According to one of the foremost lawyers on intellectual property and author's rights in Denmark Peter Schønning, a photograph taken in Denmark is a work (covered in 70 years after the year of the author’s death per §63) when it displays "the author's own intellectual creation and reflects his personality". Photographs that does not display the author's personality and intellectual creation, are protected 50 complete (gregorian) calendar years following the year of the photographs creation (§50).
A vast majority of the participants in the discussion above, consider that a portrait photograph does not does not display the author's personality and intellectual creation.
Thus there are no significant doubt that the photo is only protected for 50 complete calendar years after the creation. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 颐园新居 as Speedy (已上传在相同位置拍的另一张图片，质量更好，重复，请求删除) Sreejith K (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The author (Glenn Gould) is not dead since 70 years. SO I think this file is not in the public domain Pamputt (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Insider as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © Нестерова, not PD-RU-exempt Sreejith K (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Picture uploaded Shuenlith sharif (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of http://www.platinumsuites.com.bd/galleries/restaurants/images/cafenemo_1.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of http://www.platinumsuites.com.bd/galleries/restaurants/images/terrace_3.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In der angegeben Quelle ist dieses Logo nicht zu finden. Stark anzunehmen ist es, dass dieses Logo insofern nachempfunden wurde, indem der bloße Schriftzug am Tivoli in ein Logo verarbeitet wurde, das tatsächlich so gar nicht existiert. Undeviginti (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to be from here:: http://www.tmwmtt.com/slooze/photos.php?RollID=Panoramas&FrameID=2002-10-03+Smederevo does not match user ID. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful license, authorship, low resolution for own work, no original EXIF. Art-top (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mtking as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.usy.org/ is claiming copyright, this is probably work for hire and is more than simple shapes so copyvio Sreejith K (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license - low resolution for own work, no original EXIF. Art-top (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:RESOLUCIÓN DE PREGUNTAS Y PROBLEMAS PROPUESTOS SOBRE TRANSMISIÓN DE MODULACIÓN DE AMPLITUD.pdf
[edit]Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its copyright status notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cplakidas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No freedom of panorama in Greece Sreejith K (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
something wrong in top-right hand corner Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, probably all other user uploads too Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File out of scope, used for a self-promotional article (deleted), without educational value. L736E (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File out of scope, used for a self-promotional article (deleted), without educational use L736E (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio [10] . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
British company; complex enough to be eligible for copyright (see COM:TOO#UK). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the blank upload and this edit, I think the uploader would like us to delete this image. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no information about author in description, so we can't use {{PD-old}}. Kobac (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Existe otro archivo, duplicado de éste Basílica de la Sagrada Familia. Triforio.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl FilpoC (talk • contribs) 2012-05-20T13:27:49 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
._%C3%89variste_Carpentier.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._%C3%89variste_Carpentier.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mauvais scannage Cafedelyon 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
._Évariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonkerz as Speedy (reason=This is one of eigth recently uploaded photos by User:Starkeyz who on his talk page ask to have them deleted due to incompatible licenses (CC-NC)) Sreejith K (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The author never licenced these photos under a free license and as such they should be speedied as copyvios. The upload also happens the be the author, but that doesn't change anything. Starkeyz' 2nd edit, 6 minutes after his first, was adding "... All images and films are Creative Commons, Non-Commercial." to his user page, so this is not a case of the author trying revoke a free license, just a misunderstanding, and now he would like to see these photos removed. None of the images are older than a week or used on any page. If any further general discussion about this set of images is needed, please add your thoughts here to keep the discussion in one place. Links to the other files and their entries can be found at Starkeyz' user page. jonkerz♠ 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Low res, superseded by other images. Should be replaced on WM projects and then deleted. Koavf (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image is in use in multiple projects. Badseed talk 17:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- pilot error -- after taking a closer look I don't think this image I uploaded is in scope. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused image. Badseed talk 17:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by User:Newone310 was:
- Uploaded new version with new licence with new name "Rock Bassist Jae-hyuck Seo (Los Angeles Ford Amphitheatre 2010)" --Sreejith K (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused duplicate of File:Rock Bassist Jae-hyuck Seo (Los Angeles Ford Amphitheatre 2010).JPG Badseed talk 17:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by User:Termininja was:
- mistake --Sreejith K (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file requested by uploader. Badseed talk 17:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no Commons:Freedom of panorama for France. This is a modern building, see also Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- What about de minimis? These buildings are seen from a distance, after all. --Edelseider (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Showing a minor (especially non-creative) part might be Ok, showing the whole object as the central part of an image is usually not. This is arguable for panorama images, thus opinions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not the whole object, though: the lower part is hidden.--Edelseider (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Showing a minor (especially non-creative) part might be Ok, showing the whole object as the central part of an image is usually not. This is arguable for panorama images, thus opinions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No questionb here -- the image has only one important subject. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by PierreSelim as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image of Transformers Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete See COM:TOYS. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by 217.246.210.49 was:
- I think its a copy from http://www.manfred-neupert.de/vita.html See also File:Manfred-Neupert-01.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by 217.246.210.49 was:
- I think its a copy from http://www.manfred-neupert.de/vita.html See also File:Manfred Neupert.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I created the file last night as an improvement of File:Map Macedonia 336 BC-en.svg, and I uploaded it as "B" just to see if my amendments would come out correctly. They did, and so I have uploaded the same file over the top of File:Map Macedonia 336 BC-en.svg. My "B" version should therefore be deleted. Hogweard (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Next time you better use the template {{Duplicate}} --JuTa 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Caricamento foto sbagliata per errore --Sreejith K (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request for unused erroneous file. Badseed talk 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Campeche_in_Mexico.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused duplicate of the other file. Badseed talk 01:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Guerrero_in_Mexico_(location_map_scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uploader's request, unused, dupe of other file. Badseed talk 01:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Hidalgo in Mexico (location map scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uploader's request, unused, dupe of the other file. Badseed talk 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
wrong file Prosystems (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, unused. Badseed talk 01:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in US for sculptures. Sreejith K (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 2005 US statue; assumed copyrighted unless evidence is produced showing the artist has free licensed their work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The focus is the scene, not anything copyrighted. French courts are very lenient on this, see COM:FOP#France. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Are you both refering to the Tour Montparnasse jurisprudence (sadly not yet in COM:FOP#France) ? I'll search for some references on this jurisprudence. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per the previous keep votes. The picture can be cropped if needed. Jeriby (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.149.75 10:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - focus is on flags, not on architecture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
no fop in the us FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- fop?--Astros4477 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (note that I am the author) I did not realize the FOP issue when I took this photo. After reviewing the page linked by FunkMonk, I agree that this should be deleted. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- And cropped, http://www.itusozluk.com/gorseller/%F6mer+onan/250632. --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1991 stamps. Following to this discussion, it seems that stamps are not in the PD in North Korea. BrightRaven (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I followed Commons:Stamps/Public domain#North Korea. If this image is deleted, please also remove the paragraph on Commons:Stamps/Public domain to avoid further errors. (This was actually youe idea ;) Mirgolth (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. One should also update this map. (I think NK should be yellow.) BrightRaven (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yellow appears to be publication+50 years (e.g. {{PD-Japan-organization}} for Japan Post stamps) but isn't North Korea life+50 years instead? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It seems it is publication + 50 years for works of organization (just like in Japan): see {{PD-DPRKOld}}. BrightRaven (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yellow appears to be publication+50 years (e.g. {{PD-Japan-organization}} for Japan Post stamps) but isn't North Korea life+50 years instead? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. One should also update this map. (I think NK should be yellow.) BrightRaven (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Sollte dieses Bild nicht gelöscht werden, wenn kein Bezug zu einem Artikel vorhanden ist und es zweifelhaft bleibt, ob Sidious1987 die Erlaubnis hat, dieses Bild zu verwenden? -- Grüsse A. Guzewicz 77.87.224.100 11:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 77.87.224.100 11:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- @A. Guzewicz, möchtest du damit andeuten, dass der Uploader nicht der Photograph ist oder geht es nur um den Aspekt Persönlichkeitsrecht? --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: Vermutlich ist beides nicht der Fall. Das Foto kommt offensichtlich von der Firmen-Homepage des Fotografierten (siehe http://www.beratungsrechner.de/public/671412_Seminarhighlight_Trainings_mit_Prof_Dr_Kriebel_persoenlich/?mx=31fbf001624818ed6d5e0c073c30c6b1) und ich bezweifle, dass der Fotografierte seine Zustimmung gegeben hat (Persönlichkeitsrecht). Und dann ist ja auch noch der Punkt, dass das Foto nicht mehr (durch die Löschung der Artikels zu der Person) verwendet wird. Eine Relevanz ist also auch hier zu hinterfragen. Freundliche Grüsse A. Guzewicz 31 Mai 2012
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Foto evidentemete amatoriale, senza qualità, che non rappresenta nulla se non sè stessa, non certo Verrès, poco rappresentativa anche nella categoria. Credo non possa neppure essere rilasciato in pubblico dominio, foto di bambini titolari del copyright della loro faccia di cui si indica pure il nome dell'insegnante. Oltre al problema copyright, è una foto caricata dal figlio per ricordare il padre suicida. Motivazione a mio avviso troppo personale per definire la foto enciclopedica. E' anche testimonianza dell'ossessione del figlio per il padre, oggi anche lui non più tra noi. Per me macabro trovarla tra le altre foto del comune.--Patafisik (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ehm, he (the uploader) is dead. I translate my first message with Google translator: this photo is evidentemete amateur, not quality, and it does not represent anything but itself, not the city of Verres, the category is not good. I believe that this picture can not be released into the public domain: it is photos of children from the copyright holders of their face which also indicates the name of the teacher. In addition to the problem of copyright, is a picture loaded from the son to remember his father committed suicide. Even the user who uploaded the photo committed suicide, died and then you do not need to contact your account. The photo may not defirisi encyclopedic because it's just a photo school that has nothing to do with the city, it's just a photo to remember the user for his father, I do not know why he had placed on Commons and not on his personal website. For me it's macabre take this photo a photo of the town of Verres.. Please delete it!--Patafisik (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. and COM:PRIVACY Trixt (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A derivative work from http://flagspot.net/flags/gr-athen.html (colors different, but the elements are the same). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Action taken: I have repaired the source information and licence to point to the right location (I remember where it was, and it was in the same FOTW site as File:Flag of Corfu.png, but I didn't realise until now that the source had been left behind). --Marianian(talk) 09:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that their images (depending on the author) does not allow their use in Wikipedia, and their terms of use forbids commercial reuse and modification. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Some users are of the opinion that this file cannot be kept under PD-textlogo, but had slapped it with a 'permission' template - which makes little sense if it's really PD-textlogo, and not much more sense if it's not. So I'm nominating this to get some clarity whether this could meet the requirements for PD-textlogo or not. Pbech (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me to be a simple arrangement of short text and geometric shapes. (Two common English words and an asterisk, over 2 rectangles, one red and one white.) Seems to meet qualifications for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is already tagged as trademarked, which is a non-copyright issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not of the opinion that this image should be removed from Commons, because it abides by its policy. However, it does not qualify as a PD-textlogo according to Dutch copyright law, which is applicable on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have contacted the publisher to see if they are either willing to grant permission for the use of the image or start a proceeding to qualify this as a tort. The intention is to have this image removed from nlwiki because we abide by European and Dutch law, not whatever is used here on Commons. Woodcutterty (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Addition: I believe this image is not PD-text, because it is obviously a creative work. Every work in essence consists of geometric shapes and/or text, but that does not mean it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Someone has put creative effort into making this and it is therefore protected by copyright. I have contacted the publisher to see if they are willing to grant permission for the use of the logo. Woodcutterty (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Copyright in country of origin is a legitimate concern on Commons. If this is image is a copyright problem under Netherlands law, could you please be specific as to what law or ruling you believe is being violated? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Article 10 of the Dutch copyright law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Endstra/Nieuw Amsterdam and Lancôme/Kecofa. The article requires originality, but, according to the court, there is a very low threshold in the Netherlands. As long as originality, small as it may be, can be seen in the work, it is protected by copyright under Dutch law. Woodcutterty (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- On further consideration, I'm inclined to agree. This logo seems to meet the criteria for eligibility for copyright under Dutch law as set forth in Van Dale/Romme and further specified in Endstra/Nieuw Amsterdam: it has its "own, original character" because it does not seem to be "derived from some other work", and it bears "the personal stamp of its maker" because it has "a shape that is the result of creative human labour, and thus, of creative choices, and as such is a product of the human mind" (original Dutch text can be found in many places, the original ruling is here, a discussion of it in the context of Van Dale/Romme is nl:Arrest Van Dale/Romme. It's interesting to see that the bar is set considerably lower than in US and even German law. In any case, I'm not a lawyer and this should in no way be construed as legal advice. In particular I cannot answer the question what these considerations mean for the presence of this image on Commons and its use in articles on the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Pbech (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Article 10 of the Dutch copyright law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Endstra/Nieuw Amsterdam and Lancôme/Kecofa. The article requires originality, but, according to the court, there is a very low threshold in the Netherlands. As long as originality, small as it may be, can be seen in the work, it is protected by copyright under Dutch law. Woodcutterty (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-text? FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing the above discussion I would argue that keeping it deserves a little more explanation than just 'PD-text?'. Could you please explain what made you keep it? 86.83.61.47 12:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:Bahya ben Asher ap 003.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. The first revision looks like a magazine cover, so it is probably unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There also seems to be a deletion request for the non-existing talk page: Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Romulo Baba.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Priyanka Chopra Promote 'Teri Meri Kahaani' on DLF IPL's Extraaa innings (3).jpg 188.254.230.210 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you be a little more specific on the reason for this deletion request? Why do you want to get this image deleted? --Sreejith K (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Although this file may not be eligible for copyright in the United States, it's probably copyrighted in its home country, Japan. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really so much more complex than a cup of noodles? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really what Japan's threshold is and I am not really sure if it's simple so maybe we should delete this per Commons:PRP, unless you know what the Japanese threshold of originality is. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Il montre une étoile de David est une croix gammé entre autre c'est une insulte pour le peuple juif qui a tout de même perdu 6 millions de juifs à cause des nazis 82.226.134.232 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like the nominator says the close juxtaposition of a Star of David and a swastika is insulting to Jews who died because of the Nazis. The symbol is from the nineteenth century and has nothing to do with Nazis or insulting Jews, and we don't delete things for reasons like this. —innotata 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep -- Adolf Hitler wasn't even born when the original form of this emblem was adopted in 1875. The "extremist" use of the swastika was pretty much unknown to the general publics of Western nations until the Munich Beer-hall Putsch of 1923, and didn't become the main symbolism attached to the swastika until the mid 1930's... AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is wikipedia. The purpose of this website is for the public to inform the public about topics. Deleting a symbol because it offends ignorant people who do not understand the history behind it goes against exactly what wikipedia stands for (complete freedom of the press and knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.65.226.14 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
- From nik. Knowledge should never be censored by the ignorant nor the powerfull..suppression of knowledge makes us all ignorant and able to be oppressed if not inslaved. Hittler enslavment and genocide of the jews and slavs under the banner of the shwaztika was a 20th centuray Incident but the historical use of this symbol as a religious or philisophical representation in greek; roman; buddhist and hindu cultures spans melenium.... the schwastica is not what we should be offended at, its those that would suppress anyone elses culture, beliefs or knowledge whom we should direct our offence. this artical should not be banned or deleted because of some one ignorance. maybe they should read it and understand the true significance of the symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.91.220.243 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Nahum Gutman was died in 1980, so we can't use his work without OTRS-ticket from copyright holder. Kobac (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- i had receive copyright Clarence for this pic from the sun of the artist. Talmoryair (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If that is the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
error,copy without permission Sreejith K (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 08:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Probleme mit den Urheberrechten beim veröffentlichen in einem Artikel. -Drkeuwiki (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Chiapas_in_Mexico_(location_map_scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Veto. The border between Campeche and Quintana Roo in this file is correct, in the "preferred file", however, it is wrong → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 13:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Quintana_Roo_in_Mexico_(location_map_scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Veto. The border between Campeche and Quintana Roo in this file is correct, in the "preferred file", however, it is wrong → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Tabasco in Mexico (location map scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Veracruz_in_Mexico_(location_map_scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Veto. The border between Campeche and Quintana Roo in this file is correct, in the "preferred file", however, it is wrong → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Is preferred to use File:Yucatan_in_Mexico_(location_map_scheme).svg --Sreejith K (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Veto. The border between Campeche and Quintana Roo in this file is correct, in the "preferred file", however, it is wrong → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- there is a newer version of this figure: File:Bsp CW radar.enhanced.png. It couldn't upload as a new version of the older one file, because it has got a different file type.
- the new one file has got a higher resolution (3-fold) and an advanced content, some additionally radar devices are added to the figure: a power amplifier in the transmitters path and two power dividers near the generators.
- I am the author of both files: Averse is an old account-name of me.
- --Charly Whisky (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page. --JuTa 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- thnx (indeed)!--Charly Whisky (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Falsche Datei; wird nicht gebraucht. -Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- This file can be deleted --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably made by Warner Bros in 1961 or later and probably copyrighted. Free version exist at File:Kagi poster.jpg. --Snek01 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by User:NeverDoING was:
- reprodukcja fotograficzne przeswietlona --Sreejith K (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Models of objects may be copyrighted even if the original object is not. A.Savin 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrS. (talk • contribs) 2012-02-12T18:43:39 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SVT_137_154_modell_Piko_a.jpg&diff=66670112&oldid=64641281){kind=link}
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is more of a toy than a model, exactly how this affects anything I'm not sue Oxyman (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)--JuTa 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 024.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 001.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- sustituido por: file:ClasiBinaEs 001.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Si, eliminar el archivo. Dáni (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Models of objects may be copyrighted even if the original object is not. A.Savin 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrS. (talk • contribs) 2012-02-12T18:45:08 (UTC)
- Comment. The model itself is copyright i.e. people can't just copy and sell it, but this a photograph of a model by Frits Osterthun who has licensed it. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed for speedy deletion by Asybaris01 with the reason: Wrong name: Mergenthal Church not Stejarisu Church. Duplicate file of this.--Strainu (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The wrong name is not a criteria for deletion, and it is very obviously NOT a duplicate. File should be renamed to File:Merghindeal Church.jpg instead.--Strainu (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified by User:Tokumeigakarinoaoshima was:
- 同一アングルで且つより鮮明と思われる作品がある事からこの作品は削除して差し支えないと思った為 --Sreejith K (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The color rendering does not match the corporate design of the SuperBioMarkt AG; Die Farbwiedergabe entspricht nicht dem Corporate Design der SuperBioMarkt AG-212.3.66.154 07:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I created this page to replace a malformed DR. I make no comment on whether this file should be kept or deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Survival of the Madest.jpg was imported from Flickr, but the photo is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen". So I'd suggest deleting it as the licensing is at the least unclear and ambiguous. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep But the valied licence is marked as CC-BY2.0, see: Licensing -> Multi-licensing. Electron ツ ➧☎ 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand that we can defend our actions, but having an image marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" doesn't look right. It looks to me as if we are taking advantage of someone's mistake - if Fisher Queen had meant to release an image under an open license surely she would have posted a version without the words "All rights reserved to". WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is only your own speculations without any proves. Actually, what we know are: the photo was released on 2 licenses and one of them is CC-BY2.0 - accepted on Commons. Electron ツ ➧☎ 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- That the image is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" is not speculation. What is in question is what we should do in a case where the license on Flickr contradicts an unambiguous statement on the image. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, that the image is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" & "CC-BY2.0", see: here. What we should do in such situation is describe here. Electron ツ ➧☎ 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that people can deliberately release the same image under different licenses, and that we only need one of those licenses to be compatible with Commons. My concern here is that the difference may be inadvertent and that if Capture Queen subsequently changes her Flickr options all we have is an image that is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen". In such circumstances surely it is better to default to caution rather than risk having an image that the author didn't intend to release? WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to say but it is only your own speculation. In contradiction I can speculate that it is rather more difficult to change the license that is in photo watermark than change it on the Flickr page. So it was the decision the author to change it only on the Flickr page. But it is only my speculation. And my own opinion. Electron ツ ➧☎ 14:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- When in doubt, we don't speculate one way or the other. We err on the side of caution. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to say but it is only your own speculation. In contradiction I can speculate that it is rather more difficult to change the license that is in photo watermark than change it on the Flickr page. So it was the decision the author to change it only on the Flickr page. But it is only my speculation. And my own opinion. Electron ツ ➧☎ 14:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that people can deliberately release the same image under different licenses, and that we only need one of those licenses to be compatible with Commons. My concern here is that the difference may be inadvertent and that if Capture Queen subsequently changes her Flickr options all we have is an image that is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen". In such circumstances surely it is better to default to caution rather than risk having an image that the author didn't intend to release? WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, that the image is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" & "CC-BY2.0", see: here. What we should do in such situation is describe here. Electron ツ ➧☎ 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- That the image is clearly marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" is not speculation. What is in question is what we should do in a case where the license on Flickr contradicts an unambiguous statement on the image. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is only your own speculations without any proves. Actually, what we know are: the photo was released on 2 licenses and one of them is CC-BY2.0 - accepted on Commons. Electron ツ ➧☎ 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand that we can defend our actions, but having an image marked "All rights reserved to Capture Queen" doesn't look right. It looks to me as if we are taking advantage of someone's mistake - if Fisher Queen had meant to release an image under an open license surely she would have posted a version without the words "All rights reserved to". WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have any doubts. Our rules are clear -> Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. You both have unproven doubts, only. Electron ツ ➧☎ 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The rules are indeed clear, according to Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing Capture Queen is certainly entitled to release the same content under different licenses. But that isn't the reason for deletion, the reason for deletion is that it is unclear which license applies, and if capture Queen subsequently changes fer Flickr preferences or even simply closes or renames her account it would then be very difficult to demonstrate that an image marked all rights reserved was actually available to load. If a site says "All images available on a non-commercial no derivatives version of cc-by-sa, images under 1mb may also be treated as public domain" then we know where we stand, which images are multilicensed and we are free to upload the ones that are under 1mb. If someone has a default license on their site but watermarks some individual images as "all rights reserved" then we are taking a risk if we upload images marked "all rights reserved" on the basis that they just forgot to remove the watermark. Safer to delete - if the uploader is the photographer then you could ask them to clarify and remove the watermark, but that isn't the case here. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not the real problem. See: It was reviewed on 19 lipca 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. The robot is independent from me or you, and dosn't make mistake. It is it's only job to check the license. Of course you can don't beleve me, you can don't beleve the robot... There are some people who don't beleve anybody and that is a real problem... But it is their problem, not my. Electron ツ ➧☎ 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK the FlickrBot would make it somewhat easier, at least people in Commons would accept that at the time of upload there was a license that contradicted the one in the image. But if someone using this image was to try and argue that in court I wouldn't fancy their chances. As LX has pointed out, Commons precedents are to delete such images. I appreciate that you've now asked the photographer to clarify their intention, and hopefully we will get them to respond favourably, but in the meantime is there anything about this image that you consider makes it different from the precedents that LX listed? Or is it just that you disagree with the practice of deleting such images? WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- See my explanation, done belove, about maths and logical basic rules. Electron ツ ➧☎ 08:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK the FlickrBot would make it somewhat easier, at least people in Commons would accept that at the time of upload there was a license that contradicted the one in the image. But if someone using this image was to try and argue that in court I wouldn't fancy their chances. As LX has pointed out, Commons precedents are to delete such images. I appreciate that you've now asked the photographer to clarify their intention, and hopefully we will get them to respond favourably, but in the meantime is there anything about this image that you consider makes it different from the precedents that LX listed? Or is it just that you disagree with the practice of deleting such images? WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not the real problem. See: It was reviewed on 19 lipca 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. The robot is independent from me or you, and dosn't make mistake. It is it's only job to check the license. Of course you can don't beleve me, you can don't beleve the robot... There are some people who don't beleve anybody and that is a real problem... But it is their problem, not my. Electron ツ ➧☎ 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- "All rights reserved" is not a license; it's the absence of one. Multi-licensing makes sense in some cases. For example, you can combine a free license with a non-commercial share-alike license if you want to give people the option of modifying your work without requiring them to release their modifications for commercial use. Reserving all rights and waiving them makes no sense. When a license is issued along with statements that directly contradict the license, it's clear that the licensor has not understood the licensing terms. When it's clear that the licensor has not understood the terms of the license, the license is void, and you can't rely on it. As I've demonstrated below, this is far from the first time this has come up. The fact that you, as a license reviewer, are arguing so strongly against Commons' well-established precedent in a single case without distinguishing factors is frankly very worrying. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Follow your thought: "All rights reserved" is not a license; it's the absence of one there is only one valied license produced: "CC-BY2.0". Btw. I try follow our rules on the first, not precedentes. If the practice is against our rules permamently, the rules should be changed. The rules are for follow them and shouldn't be broken permamently. It is you who try to force me to brake our rules, not me. Electron ツ ➧☎ 09:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, a license issued along with contradictory statements is not valid. This is the law, our rules are to follow the law, and our precedents demonstrate that we do. I'm not trying to force you to break the rules. Where did you get that preposterous idea from? I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I would expect trusted users to abide by well-established policies and practices, and I've shown what they are. If you want to change them, feel free to argue for it, but a deletion discussion for an individual file is not the right place to do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we talking about our rules: I don't think that the user can't published a photo on contradicted licenses. It can. You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use. They are contradicted licenses, don't they? As I understand your opinion is different. In my opinion you go to far, with your interpretation of this rule. But OK. In this situation the best to do is to ask the author. What I have done, see -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/uaeincredible/313905783/ . So, please wait a moment to see what the author will say. Regards Electron ツ ➧☎ 10:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- As I already explained, a non-free license can be complementary to a free license. It's offering the licensee the choice of one set of terms or another. "All rights reserved" is not offering anything – it's saying "I forbid you to do anything that I legally can forbid you to do." Combining that with a free license makes no sense and is absolutely 100% contradictory. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- But as you said the statement "All rights reserved" we can consider as the form of license that allows nothing. So, I see no difference with e.g. "I don't allow commercial use" & "I allow commercial use". It is the similar case. Mathematics says: the sum of the empty set (0 -> I allow nothing) and not empty set (1 -> I allow something) is not empty set (0+1=1 -> I allow someting). It's also one of the elementary rule of the Boolean maths... See -> [13]. So, from matematical and logical point of view two statements done in the same time: "All rights reserved" (I allow nothing) plus "CC-BY2.0" (I allow "CC-BY2.0") makes "CC-BY2.0" (I allow "CC-BY2.0"). And it is yours argumentation that makes no sense. Electron ツ ➧☎ 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. Let me try to explain once again. A license is more than a single clause such as a non-commercial term, and it can only be accepted as a whole. By offering a choice of a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike with a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Non-Commercial, you give licensees the option of publishing any changes that they make to your work under either license. In other words, you offer them the choice of whether to allow or prohibit commercial use of their changes. "All rights reserved," by contrast, does not constitute an offer of anything. It simply reaffirms the default status of any copyrighted work. It's used by people who are protective of their works to explicitly discourage any and all use of the work. "You can use this work as long as you attribute me and you can't use this work at all" is a self-contradictory statement. "You can use this work and modify it as long as you attribute me and release it under one of these two licenses, one of which allows commercial use and one of which does not" is not. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion a license is a kind of statement and a statement we can consider like a kind of licence. So, they can be compared and we can make logical operations on them. The mathematics and logic says: 0+1=1. If sombody tries to dispute with the logical and mathematical basic rules I have nothing more to say... Electron ツ ➧☎ 07:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well it isn't really a mathematical scenario, but as I see it where there is ambiguity you would like to lean towards using any image where we can make a case for inclusion (keep if either a or b is a valid license). However precedent is for us to delete where there is a significant risk that the less open license could be held to apply (where there is ambiguity delete if either a or b is an invalid license). By the way I agree that a license is a kind of statement and that "all rights reserved" is a licensing statement - just one that means you can look at that photo on flickr but it doesn't belong here. If you want to change Commons policy on these sorts of images then I would suggest filing a request for Comment. But you first might want to get your rebuttals ready for obvious counter-arguments such as what do we say to the person who used one of our images and now their boss has complaints to deal with, or how we respond to the photographer or model who didn't think they'd agreed to the licensing. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1. There in a free country everybody can questioning everything; even can go across basic rules of logic. There maybe more such people like him. They can make "precendents", as well. But, please, do not question elementary rules of logic if I am present.
- 2. You look like don't understand my poin of view: Our rules are clear for me, but the "precendents" are against logic. I see no need to change the rules. If samebody thinks that it is strange that the "precedentes" go againts rules and see a big need to change the rules he/she can try to do that. But it is not me - for me the rules are clear and if we can use it with "usual" logic they work properly. Electron ツ ➧☎ 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1 This isn't a freedom issue. The dispute we have with various Art Galleries as to whether they can claim copyright on photos of out of copyright paintings is a freedom issue. But this is about whether we take advantage of other people's mistakes and whether we take risks when we tell our users that they can use commons images.
- 2 In my view the precedents are logical and how one applies the rules. You are free to try and get consensus to change them, just as I am free to defend them. But if you were to try and change them I would suggest you consider how to respond to the scenarios I detailed above "the person who used one of our images and now their boss has complaints to deal with, and what we say to the photographer or model who didn't think they'd agreed to the licensing.". WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well it isn't really a mathematical scenario, but as I see it where there is ambiguity you would like to lean towards using any image where we can make a case for inclusion (keep if either a or b is a valid license). However precedent is for us to delete where there is a significant risk that the less open license could be held to apply (where there is ambiguity delete if either a or b is an invalid license). By the way I agree that a license is a kind of statement and that "all rights reserved" is a licensing statement - just one that means you can look at that photo on flickr but it doesn't belong here. If you want to change Commons policy on these sorts of images then I would suggest filing a request for Comment. But you first might want to get your rebuttals ready for obvious counter-arguments such as what do we say to the person who used one of our images and now their boss has complaints to deal with, or how we respond to the photographer or model who didn't think they'd agreed to the licensing. WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion a license is a kind of statement and a statement we can consider like a kind of licence. So, they can be compared and we can make logical operations on them. The mathematics and logic says: 0+1=1. If sombody tries to dispute with the logical and mathematical basic rules I have nothing more to say... Electron ツ ➧☎ 07:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. Let me try to explain once again. A license is more than a single clause such as a non-commercial term, and it can only be accepted as a whole. By offering a choice of a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike with a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Non-Commercial, you give licensees the option of publishing any changes that they make to your work under either license. In other words, you offer them the choice of whether to allow or prohibit commercial use of their changes. "All rights reserved," by contrast, does not constitute an offer of anything. It simply reaffirms the default status of any copyrighted work. It's used by people who are protective of their works to explicitly discourage any and all use of the work. "You can use this work as long as you attribute me and you can't use this work at all" is a self-contradictory statement. "You can use this work and modify it as long as you attribute me and release it under one of these two licenses, one of which allows commercial use and one of which does not" is not. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- But as you said the statement "All rights reserved" we can consider as the form of license that allows nothing. So, I see no difference with e.g. "I don't allow commercial use" & "I allow commercial use". It is the similar case. Mathematics says: the sum of the empty set (0 -> I allow nothing) and not empty set (1 -> I allow something) is not empty set (0+1=1 -> I allow someting). It's also one of the elementary rule of the Boolean maths... See -> [13]. So, from matematical and logical point of view two statements done in the same time: "All rights reserved" (I allow nothing) plus "CC-BY2.0" (I allow "CC-BY2.0") makes "CC-BY2.0" (I allow "CC-BY2.0"). And it is yours argumentation that makes no sense. Electron ツ ➧☎ 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- As I already explained, a non-free license can be complementary to a free license. It's offering the licensee the choice of one set of terms or another. "All rights reserved" is not offering anything – it's saying "I forbid you to do anything that I legally can forbid you to do." Combining that with a free license makes no sense and is absolutely 100% contradictory. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- If we talking about our rules: I don't think that the user can't published a photo on contradicted licenses. It can. You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use. They are contradicted licenses, don't they? As I understand your opinion is different. In my opinion you go to far, with your interpretation of this rule. But OK. In this situation the best to do is to ask the author. What I have done, see -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/uaeincredible/313905783/ . So, please wait a moment to see what the author will say. Regards Electron ツ ➧☎ 10:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, a license issued along with contradictory statements is not valid. This is the law, our rules are to follow the law, and our precedents demonstrate that we do. I'm not trying to force you to break the rules. Where did you get that preposterous idea from? I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I would expect trusted users to abide by well-established policies and practices, and I've shown what they are. If you want to change them, feel free to argue for it, but a deletion discussion for an individual file is not the right place to do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Follow your thought: "All rights reserved" is not a license; it's the absence of one there is only one valied license produced: "CC-BY2.0". Btw. I try follow our rules on the first, not precedentes. If the practice is against our rules permamently, the rules should be changed. The rules are for follow them and shouldn't be broken permamently. It is you who try to force me to brake our rules, not me. Electron ツ ➧☎ 09:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- The rules are indeed clear, according to Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing Capture Queen is certainly entitled to release the same content under different licenses. But that isn't the reason for deletion, the reason for deletion is that it is unclear which license applies, and if capture Queen subsequently changes fer Flickr preferences or even simply closes or renames her account it would then be very difficult to demonstrate that an image marked all rights reserved was actually available to load. If a site says "All images available on a non-commercial no derivatives version of cc-by-sa, images under 1mb may also be treated as public domain" then we know where we stand, which images are multilicensed and we are free to upload the ones that are under 1mb. If someone has a default license on their site but watermarks some individual images as "all rights reserved" then we are taking a risk if we upload images marked "all rights reserved" on the basis that they just forgot to remove the watermark. Safer to delete - if the uploader is the photographer then you could ask them to clarify and remove the watermark, but that isn't the case here. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have any doubts. Our rules are clear -> Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. You both have unproven doubts, only. Electron ツ ➧☎ 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. There are lots of precedents for cases like this: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maryfelicity wip.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sam Snyder 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konstantin Shamray.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kevinabrown.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:"IOLE", by Fox Harvard.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:City Glow.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frankurt.jpg... —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- equivocación al subir archivo --Sreejith K (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- copyvio, no freedom of panorama in the US for statues --Sreejith K (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Freedom of Panorama violation --Sreejith K (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Freedom of Panorama violation --Sreejith K (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creating missing Sub-page. Original reason specified was:
- Freedom of Panorama violation --Sreejith K (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings and 3D art. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
out of scope, family pics
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Volleyball3 (talk · contribs)
[edit]fan pics, no description, no author, not usable for educational purposes
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:PC cards
[edit]Cards with complex logos or other graphics. The printing on these cards appears to meet the threshold of originality and can hardly be seen as de minimis.
- File:AH-H407P expansion.jpg
- File:Air-edge adapter.JPG
- File:AVM FRITZ!Card PCMCIA.jpg
- File:Azercell ödəmə kartı, 3AZN.jpg
- File:Corega EtherII PCC-T （10BASE-T）.jpg
- File:D-Link Gigabit Cardbus Notebook Adapter.jpg
- File:Dlink 54mbit pcmcia.jpg
- File:Harddisc pcmcia hg.jpg
- File:IomegaClik!PocketZipDriveandMedia.png
- File:Option GT 3G+ UMTS card.jpg
- File:Orinoco silver pc card.jpg
- File:P1040999.JPG
- File:Pci-cards hg.jpg
- File:PCMCIA Dimesiones.jpg
- File:Pcmcia smart 4mb linear flash.jpg
- File:Pcmcia wlan lan 07.jpg
- File:Pcmcia-isdn-apel.JPG
- File:T-Mobile PCMCIA UMTS WLAN Card.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- What did you mean with "de minimis" ? Did you think that the visible printings and logo may problems with any copyright-law or did you think that the pictures are to similar ? --Thiemo Schuff (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- De minimis: COM:DM. The logos and other prints are copyrighted and take up a significant portion of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- But they are not the subject of the photos and neither are they actually important for the photos. We might as well blur them. // Liftarn (talk)
- For File:AVM FRITZ!Card PCMCIA.jpg which i uploaded (derivative work) i must agree - it doesnt match commons reqirements since it covers a logo/trademark (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Fritz!_Logo.svg which also states do not upload to commons), Sorry. delete it, I can reupload it to de.wikipedia if it's important there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippie2000 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- But they are not the subject of the photos and neither are they actually important for the photos. We might as well blur them. // Liftarn (talk)
- De minimis: COM:DM. The logos and other prints are copyrighted and take up a significant portion of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vladimir Putin
[edit]Kremlin.ru is not a copyright holder of the photographs from Vladimir Putin's family archive, so we can't use {{Kremlin.ru}} and transfer them to Commons without permission from the photographers.
- File:Ivan Ivanovich Shelomov.jpg
- File:Lyudmila Putin favourite photo.jpg
- File:Maria Ivanovna Shelomova.jpg
- File:Putin Grigoryev.jpg
- File:Putin70062.gif
- File:Spiridon Putin.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin as a child.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin in KGB uniform.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin with his mother.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin with parents in 1985.jpg
- File:Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin wedding-1.jpg
- File:Vladimir Putin wedding-2.jpg
Kobac (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The image source links go only directly to photos, not to pages with text. What is the description of the images and their status on the website? I'd imagine it's possible Putin's family photos could have been released to kremlin.ru (possibly similarly to how some US Presidents have released a sample of their pre-presidential photos to the US National Archives as part of their presidential collections). I think more info is needed to make a determination as to if the license applies. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Added links to pages with photos. --Art-top (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, and who's the copyright holder of "От первого лица. Разговоры с Владимиром Путиным." book? I think that it's not Kremlin.ru. Kobac (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Did you notice that Natalya Timakova is one of the authors of this book? And is also the same person who granted the CC permission from the Kremlin. She being the Russian President's press secretary. We can safely assume that the higher echelons of the Russian government have cleared everything when they have granted the CC licence. russavia (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, and who's the copyright holder of "От первого лица. Разговоры с Владимиром Путиным." book? I think that it's not Kremlin.ru. Kobac (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Russavia, we can't assume anything, because there is Precautionary principle here.
- Ms. Timakova, as the former Russian President's press secretary, has never had the authority to modify the Civil Code of Russia, because it's the prerogative of the Russian President (who can issue the Ukaz), the Federal Assembly of Russia and the Constitutional Court of Russia. "The higher echelons of the Russian government" never "have granted the CC licence" for us:
We cannot make reference on the Russian President's official site to the license Creative Commons Attributive 3.0 Unported, as this document is not on the statues of the Russian Federation.
- Anyway, the photos from the ordinary Soviet family's archive is not the property of the Russian President's press secretary office. Kobac (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf says, {{Kremlin.ru}} applies to "all material from the Russian President's official website www.kremlin.ru" therefore it is safe to assume that Presidential press office cleared all third-party copyright. --M5 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The CC-BY-3.0 release from en:Natalya Timakova, the Press Secretary of the Russian President, is explicit, as noted by M5 just above. russavia (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Naina Yeltsina
[edit]No permission from ITAR-TASS (Kremlin.ru is not a copyright holder of these photographs, so we can't use {{Kremlin.ru}} and transfer them to Commons).
- File:Boris Yeltsin 1 February 2006.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 13 July 2006.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 22 May 2004.jpg
Kobac (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, {{Kremlin.ru}} applies to all material, ITAR-TASS is state agency, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Boris Yeltsin. --M5 (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, ITAR-TASS is state-owned agency, but like RIA Novosti (also state-owned) it's not a subdivision of the Russian President's press secretary office, so the intellectual property of the Agency is not an intellectual property of the Office. Kobac (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The CC-BY-3.0 release from en:Natalya Timakova, the Press Secretary of the Russian President, is explicit, as noted by M5 just above. The photos are correctly attributed. russavia (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin
[edit]No permission from ITAR-TASS (Kremlin.ru is not a copyright holder of these photographs, so we can't use {{Kremlin.ru}} and transfer them to Commons).
Kobac (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, {{Kremlin.ru}} applies to all material, ITAR-TASS is state agency, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Boris Yeltsin. --M5 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, ITAR-TASS is state-owned agency, but like RIA Novosti (also state-owned) it's not a subdivision of the Russian President's press secretary office, so the intellectual property of the Agency is not an intellectual property of the Office. Kobac (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The CC-BY-3.0 release from en:Natalya Timakova, the Press Secretary of the Russian President, is explicit, as noted by M5 just above. The photos are correctly attributed. russavia (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Another version of this image exists on WikiCommons - 1 Since this image is of a higher quality than that, I propose that we keep this image and delete the duplicate with United States government as the copyright holder if the copyright issue here is rectified. YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Boris Yeltsin
[edit]No permission from ITAR-TASS (Kremlin.ru is not a copyright holder of these photographs, so we can't use {{Kremlin.ru}} and transfer them to Commons).
- File:Boris Jelcin.png
- File:Boris Yeltsin 1 February 1989-1.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 13 September 1999.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 19 August 1991-1.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 19 October 2000.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 2 December 2006.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 21 February 1989-1.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 22 August 1991-1.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 24 September 2006.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 3 July 2001.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 4 April 1996.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin 7 May 1996.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin-1.jpg
- File:Boris Yeltsin.jpg
- File:Boris-Yeltsin.jpg
Kobac (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf says, {{Kremlin.ru}} applies to "all material from the Russian President's official website www.kremlin.ru" therefore it is safe to assume that Presidential press office cleared all third-party copyright. Moreover, ITAR-TASS (which full name is Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Information Telegraph Agency of Russia") is not just some news agency but a state entity with regulated relationships with Government and Presidential office. ITAR-TASS was established by Russian President himself with the stated goal of (among others) "providing information services for presidential office", see p.4. of [14]. So materials attributed to ITAR-TASS are as good (if we trust File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf) as material attributed to Presidential press office own authors. --M5 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, ITAR-TASS is state-owned agency, but like RIA Novosti (also state-owned) it's not a subdivision of the Russian President's press secretary office, so the intellectual property of the Agency is not an intellectual property of the Office. Kobac (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe the Kremlin.ru employee did not think about this factum. It is not the first time that we doubt official Russian permissions. For Instance we assumed that the people of {{Volganet.ru}} do not understand the Russian freedom of panorama regualtions. Therefore we should delete these files because we must assume that this Kremlin.ru-permission applies only to their official photographers. --91.57.65.212 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep ITAR-TASS is a state organization and I think we can trust to Kremlin.ru in this case as it is really very possible that all copyright issues are regulated in this case. As I remember, Kremlin.ru corrects image description when it belongs to some other author (not Kremlin.ru) but I can't find discussion just now. I suppose it should be somewhere here in deletion requests. rubin16 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The CC-BY-3.0 release from en:Natalya Timakova, the Press Secretary of the Russian President (not just some random Kremlin.ru employee), is explicit, as noted by M5 just above. The photos are correctly attributed. russavia (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Russian official websites use only materials of state-owned agencies and TV channels. I think that this choice isn't random and they must have some non-public agreements or decrees, according to previous discussions in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. If the Press Secretary of the Russian President gave clear permission, that means all OK with copyright (we definitely must to think so for correct and simpler non-bureaucratic work of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, because we already have one permission and we don't need more and more new permissions again and again). -- TarzanASG +1 05:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LizzyBhope (talk · contribs)
[edit]user with a long copyright violation history, images can be found on the web, just a few examples below.
- File:Willmedium.jpg (e.g.) http://www.moveoutmagazine.com/accounts/posters/34523.jpg)
- File:WayOutWest.jpg (e.g. http://www.armadamusic.com/artist/way-out-west/)
- File:D.ramirez.jpg (http://www.toolroomrecords.com/artists/dramirez)
- File:Robert babicz.jpg
- File:Evil nine.jpg
- File:Hybrid.jpg
- File:Darren emerson.jpg
- File:Jody wisternoff.jpg
- File:NickWarren.jpg
- File:DJ Hyper 2010.jpg
- File:Photek RupertParkes.jpg
- File:AdamFreeland.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand whats the problem with these images. They are captured and uploaded by me.Could you please explain!!! Hellohappy (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hellohappy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF
- File:MohapatraNilamaniSahoo.jpg
- File:CapitalHighSchoolBhubaneswarDiamondJubileeRun.jpg
- File:CapitalHighSchoolBhubaneswarSouvenir.jpg
- File:CapitalHighSchoolBhubaneswarGate.jpg
- File:CapitalHighSchoolBhubaneswar.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hugo90
[edit]Some images from Hugo90's photostream:
- File:Autobianchi A111 sedan.jpg This ad pictures is the only one of these I've seen. Of course, I've never been to Italy! Tags: advertising, brochure, catalog
- File:Illinga poster 1.jpg advertising brochure, promotional poster
- File:Bolwell mk 5.jpg Ad from 1966 for one of Australia's most desirable cars
- File:Illinga poster 2.jpg A promotional poster from the short lived Australian 'Ilinga' project.
- File:Duesenberg II Speedster ad.jpg Duesenberg II advertisement. Picked up this flyer at a Carlisle Import and Kit Car show, probably 1993 or 1994.
- File:Duesenberg II Roadster & Speedster ad.jpg Duesenberg II advertisement.
- File:Moskvitch-Scaldia.jpg Press photo with text on back in German, from 1963.
-- Common Good (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Currently, SWR HD doesn't exist at all. 84.61.139.62 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No official logo; led to confusions; no encyclopedical use. Deletion requested by author Infanf (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Info I listed this page to the todays deletion request page and informed the uploader. --JuTa 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept. INeverCry 19:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)