Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_individual_outcomes.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_matrix.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_icon.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_group_outcomes.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_extensive_form.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_payoff_comparison.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_letters_matrix.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_blank_matrix.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_numbers_matrix.svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_payoff_comparison_(alternative_letters).svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Was replaced by "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stag_Hunt_conceptual_letters_matrix_(alternative_letters).svg" - it was my error to upload a JPG in the first place. Apologies for my amateurism! Christopher X J. Jensen (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: request by uploader Wvk (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private photos - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- And also:
- File:Rakesh in drink in bahirgachi bagula2.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi sujoy rocks site.jpg
- File:Bahirpload by sujoy2 (2)gachi sushil da in channai u.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi sushil da in channai upload by sujoy23.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi sushil da in channai upload by sujoy2 (4).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi sushil da in channai upload by sujoy2.jpg
- --Art-top (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
gachi_sushil_da_in_channai_u.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Permission from copyright holders not yet obtained. DuncanScottMackenzie (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The painter was English, died in 1920, so the painting has been PD for more than twenty years. There are no copyright holders. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
While George Francis Carline has been dead since 1920, this photograph (rather than the painting itself) is copyrighted material. DuncanScottMackenzie (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep No. It is the official policy of Commons, following Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that there is no copyright in photographs of flat works of art that are themselves not covered by copyright. The policy applies regardless of where the work of art is located. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
A copyrighted screenshot claimed as own work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship and license. Art-top (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship and license. Art-top (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- And also:
- File:Sujoy bahirgachi rail para.jpg
- File:Ajay bahirgachi arnghata upload by sujoy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi wanted boy golok dhali.jpg
- File:Sujoy bahirgachi high school nadia.jpg
- File:Monty bahirgachi.jpg
- File:Monty bahirgachi (15).jpg
- File:Biswajit bahirgachi (4).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi toma kutta upload by sujoy rocks bahirgachi.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy roy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy rocks.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (34).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (44).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (43).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (42).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (41).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (40).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (39).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (38).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (37).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (36).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (26).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (33).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (32).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (31).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (30).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (28).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (27).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (18).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (25).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (19).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (24).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (23).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (22).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (10).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (17).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (16).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (14).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (15).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (13).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (12).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (11).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (7).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (6).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (8).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (2).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (4).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (3).jpg
- --Art-top (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
mauvaise qualité et fausses couleurs Cafedelyon 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Titodutta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: How does author own copyright of this historically significant image? Sreejith K (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- This file could be in PD. Converted from speedy to get some time to investigate. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to File:Subhas Bose.jpg Sreejith K (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Spam, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, promo Wvk (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Diese Datei ist ein Duplikat einer anderen, ebenfalls von mir eingestellten Datei Hubertl (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Wvk (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FlorianHenke as Speedy Bildrechte wurden mir durch mein Unternehmen entzogen, bitte dringend löschen --FlorianHenke (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Sreejith K (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete, as courtesy deletion. Image is unused, of very low resolution and thereby hardly usable and uploader suggests to get in trouble by his employer if not deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of unused file. Sreejith K (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FlorianHenke as Speedy Sreejith K (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, as courtesy deletion. Image is unused, logo may be copyrighted by the company and uploader suggests to get in trouble by his employer if not deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of unused file. Sreejith K (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Two source images have been deleted as copyvios and need to be replaced. The other images should be checked as well. Denniss (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Lymantria (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Muhandes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: event logo, not owned by uploader, not text only Sreejith K (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I still think this is a copyright violation from the above reasons. --Muhandes (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Killiondude (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused seeming dup of File:Hexamethylbenzene.svg DMacks (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and essentially a duplicate of another file. Ed (Edgar181) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information. Kriaki (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded, holds copyright information 208.91.1.14 00:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- See also OTRS 2012053110013342 Ronhjones (Talk) 21:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted by Fastily. Thuresson (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trex2001 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image of logo Sreejith K (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is a logo, but its free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankan9911 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. "All rights reserved", according to source. Thuresson (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license. Art-top (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted, promotional photo of Jedward. Thuresson (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license. Published before upload, for example here. Art-top (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is not obviously an "own work" by the uploader. Enough proof to be deleted. Fma12 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- No evidence of permission by the author, it can be speedied as the user has been notified. --V.Riullop (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license. Published before upload, for example here. Art-top (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused photo of unknown place. Art-top (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Unused is no reason to delete. The building has a name on it, so not at unknown place at all. I have updated the description. Someone might like to rename the file though :-) --121.73.5.55 11:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This building is clearly from the Offices of the Public Defender of the Union in Brazil as can been seen in the image itself. {{User:Tm|Tm]] (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Info I renamed the file to File:Defensoria Pública da União.jpg and gave it a bit better category. --JuTa 13:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)- Renamed to File:Defensoria Pública da União.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality photo of unknown event and unknown place. Art-top (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- As per its category, it is an illustration of people playing flag-football. Big enough for wiki/web use. I have added a description. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info I renamed the file to File:People playing flag football.jpg. --JuTa 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing without educational purpose - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo without educational purpose - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo without educational purpose - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The source cite says this is from about 1925. That is nowhere near old enough to assume that the author has been dead for seventy years, as we require. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is my bad, sorry. I was the one who put it up but I didn't read the terms about the death of the author closely enough. I'll be more careful in the future. Rkceo (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a clear case of an good-faith mistake. -Pete F (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Good-faith mistake by the uploader PierreSelim (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Our company logo has changed. Delete this Shkacas (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader's request and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic. Picture used in an article deleted by staff at Wikipedia to advertise. Tiago Gospel (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic. Picture used in an article deleted by staff at Wikipedia to advertise. Tiago Gospel (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Blank graph, useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
low res, no exif, single-upload user, multiple hits of (smaller res) versions. smells copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted, larger version published two years earlier here [1]. Thuresson (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Unreliable Flickr source. Flickr account [2] appears to be a Fansite and hosts multiple items that clearly appear to be TV screenshots of multiple different programs, unlikely to be all owned by the same copyright holder Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
deleted: very likely flickr washing, (ie. copyvio). --PierreSelim (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the coprightholder has really given his permission. OTRS should be consulted. Avron (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete High quality image appears to be copied from web; OTRS should be used to verify consent of copyright holder. -Pete F (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. From famars.com. Thuresson (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Selo de Veracidade da declaração de herança dos títulos de Visconde e Conde de Safira.jpg
[edit]
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit]
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Selo de Veracidade da declaração de herança dos títulos de Visconde e Conde de Safira.jpg
[edit]
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
ficheiro privado, não desejo partilha-lo mais. Kardo (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope
- File:Naru bahirgachi upload by sujoy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi toma kutta upload by sujoy rocks bahirgachi.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy roy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy rocks.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (34).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (44).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (43).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (42).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (41).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (40).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (39).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (38).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (37).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (36).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (26).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (33).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (32).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (31).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (30).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (28).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (27).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (18).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (25).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (19).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (24).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (23).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (22).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy.jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (10).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (17).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (16).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (14).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (15).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (13).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (12).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (11).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (7).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (6).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (8).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (2).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (4).jpg
- File:Bahirgachi rail para upload by sujoy (3).jpg
Trex2001 (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This image is misleading in many ways. There is no country called "Greater Bangladesh" or as such. Moreover it's a question of sovereignty for Bangladesh and India. And image of Bangladesh's flag cannot be used in such manner that it can make others outside Indian subcontinent believe the existence of a country called "Greater Bangladesh". So I think I must propose speedy deletion of this image. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info See Greater Bangladesh on enwiki --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the map is a very good representation of the thinking of a certain groups of people in Bangladesh who have dreams of Greater Bangladesh. The article is not up for deletion as yet, why should the map be targetted? I think that the map can be modified - the red spot can be taken off to remove resemblance with the Bangladesh flag. I had created a template - Culture of Bengal because I believe that there is a lot common in the culture of the two parts of Bengal. Now, the template has been "modernised" and renamed Culture of Bangladesh. In the context of the aggressive approach should this map be really deleted? It speaks a thousand words! - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Potentially useful, no concerns regarding copyright. Thuresson (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Imaginary map based on no fact and is not used by any real life entity, this can be used only to spread hate on Wikimedia projects and outside. Quite "out of scope" ("providing knowledge; instructional or informative"), and according to COM:D this shouldn't be here on two counts:
- "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack": It doesn't even factually represent what it claims to represent, i.e. Greater Bangladesh (which is a loosely defined political rhetoric and a rather weak conspiracy theory, check Wikipedia). And, it is already being used to attack (by the editor who voted keep in the previous nomination).
- "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use": This is totally unsupported original research (though it's not exactly pertinent to commons, check meta-wiki). There is no source that delineates this "Map of Greater Bangladesh" (in fact a quick google image serach comes back with very different results.
"Potentially useful" doesn't seem to have any merit. Thanks. Aditya (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Additional comment. I have failed in my search for any use of the map or a clear description of its scope or the area demarcated, or a mention of its existence or potential existence outside of Wikipedia. Highly suspicious and even more superfluous, on top of being utterly useless and baseless. Aditya (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Info The file was in use on en:Greater Bangladesh between 2010-10-29 and 2010-11-22, then between 2011-01-09 and 2011-01-21, then between 2011-02-19 and 2011-02-19, then between 2011-09-07 and 2011-09-12, and finally between 2011-09-12 and 2011-12-15. Two of the removals were performed by the nominator. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as being out of scope. The creator of this map stated himself in the discussion whether this map is to be used or not:
- I feel the Map should stay even though the map has never been shown by the media or by any other organization because this will give an idea to people which areas might become a part of GB and the states which are shown as a part of GB have seen an increase in muslim population.
This is a confirmation of the edit summary of the last removal of that map (thanks, LX, for providing all the diffs!) by Ragib:
- remove map. This is original research. (Since the movement is essentially an imaginary one, creating a map is misleading. No references for the map)
The removal was since then not contested. As this map is currently unused and likely to be unused as unsourced work it appears to be indeed out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Virtually a duplicate of File:Methan Lewis.svg, copyfraud. Leyo 15:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, even looks speediable as {{Duplicate}} DMacks (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Author claims copyright on its homepage. Quote:
Attribution — You must give the original author credit. Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. © 2012 Raja Sandhu Media Corp.
The mentioned permission is only for the specification itself, not the artwork. --Trex2001 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)(talk) 06:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
+ File:Logo XMPP minified.svg -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded to French Wikipedia on October 10, 2008 when the image was licensed under a "slightly modified" en:MIT License. It remains unclear if the modified license is acceptable for Commons. The creator of the logo licenses this under a CC-BY-NC-ND. Thuresson (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
dubious own work, all of uploader's contributions at en.wiki are similar (low-res photos apparently taken from around the web) Sreejith K (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This photo published in big resolution at company site, where person work. Art-top (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deletion request opened by the author of the file that he wants to delete. The file must be deleted through Speedy delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
_Olsson-2012-06-01T11:12:00.000Z-File:Brännare.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy delete: The author wants to delete his own file. Amitie 10g (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 06:12, 17 June 2012 by Yann, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license. This photo is published here (full resolution link). Art-top (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Admins may consider retaining or deleting this pic on two grounds - DYMOCKS name is clearly viewable but nothing else is visible. Should be retain the image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what the grounds for deletion are. It does show the Dymocks logo, a simple typeface, non copyrightable? If it is copyrightable (3d sculpture?) is it de minimis or otherwise covered by freedom of panorama? The file size is adequate for wiki/web use to illustrate their bookshop, but low res enough that it doesn't show a lot of copyrighted book covers. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: too small to be useful Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs permission from SANAA and OMA architecture bureau. PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- PereslavlFoto, are you sure? It's a photo taken from a street and it depicts the building in the public access. NetBUG (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are right. Yet there is no freedom of panorama in my poor motherland.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license - low resolution for own work, no original EXIF. Art-top (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This appears to be a derivative work; no freedom of panorama in Greece. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- True - blame me - I moved this file to Commons along with some other files... Anyway it is "just" a plan of a very old floor so there is not much creativity there. But still... --MGA73 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would say the text and the drawing are probably both copyrightable. And I do blame you (just kidding). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah it turns out that if you really want you can read the text... Delete --MGA73 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah it turns out that if you really want you can read the text...
- I would say the text and the drawing are probably both copyrightable. And I do blame you (just kidding). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship and license. Art-top (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
File:PROF.SOKE GRANDMASTER IRVING SOTO photo of throwing technique Aiki jujitsu Jujitsu Aemi.jpg
[edit]
Doubtful authorship, license. Art-top (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, license. Art-top (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
High quality photo of someone apparently notable by a drive-by contributor. I'm a bit suspicious, but no real evidence. Of possible relevance is that the uploader's other upload was taken with a different camera. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
High quality photo of someone apparently notable by a drive-by contributor. I'm a bit suspicious, but no real evidence. Of possible relevance is that the uploader's other upload was taken with a different camera. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Rapsar (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Rapsar (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Porque es un duplicado del archivo Spain traffic signal s7-100.svg. Además no tiene archivos de enlace. Mabema1 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Si es así, que lo vuelen. Fma12 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Image is licenced as "educational" only, non commercial. Burpelson AFB (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The information on this file is that the original was created in 1947. Contrary to the assertion that this is public domain and therefore usable, post-1923 works are assumed to be under copyright protection. Where is the evidence that this is public domain? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. I'm not well-versed in copyright issues, but isn't there a fair use rationale for using the work to illustrate an article about it? I didn't upload the image, but wrote an article about the mural after I found the image on Commons. I was so intrigued by it I didn't stop to wonder why it was here. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to this recent biography, which uses a detail for its cover, all Benton's work is under copyright and requires permission. Again, I'm assuming there's a fair use rationale for the article on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank remind. File copyright issues has been fixed. Shuishouyue (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I see that you've changed the copyright notice on the page, but that doesn't change my original point/query that this appears to be is a work under copyright, which Cynwolfe's subsequent comment seems to substantiate. What is your evidence that it is not? Also, this request is still active: the instructions in the deletion template you removed clearly state: "Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed." I'm restoring it to the page; please leave it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we need a fair-use template that specifies its use to illustrate the article. But this isn't normally the sort of thing I deal with on Wikipedia, so I'd like to make sure it's done correctly by someone with the right information. I'd like to use it for at least two other articles (the articles on the two main mythological figures), but my understanding is that such use may exceed what's "fair," since it would supplement the topic rather than being necessary to it. 216.45.162.59 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- This image has now been replaced with a fair use version on en Wikipedia for use solely in Achelous and Hercules; unless an explicit copyright disclaimer can be found, I guess this should sadly be zapped, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. I understand. This image has been to delete it. Shuishouyue (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- This image has now been replaced with a fair use version on en Wikipedia for use solely in Achelous and Hercules; unless an explicit copyright disclaimer can be found, I guess this should sadly be zapped, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we need a fair-use template that specifies its use to illustrate the article. But this isn't normally the sort of thing I deal with on Wikipedia, so I'd like to make sure it's done correctly by someone with the right information. I'd like to use it for at least two other articles (the articles on the two main mythological figures), but my understanding is that such use may exceed what's "fair," since it would supplement the topic rather than being necessary to it. 216.45.162.59 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Really? I see that you've changed the copyright notice on the page, but that doesn't change my original point/query that this appears to be is a work under copyright, which Cynwolfe's subsequent comment seems to substantiate. What is your evidence that it is not? Also, this request is still active: the instructions in the deletion template you removed clearly state: "Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed." I'm restoring it to the page; please leave it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank remind. File copyright issues has been fixed. Shuishouyue (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to this recent biography, which uses a detail for its cover, all Benton's work is under copyright and requires permission. Again, I'm assuming there's a fair use rationale for the article on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
_by_Thomas_Hart_Benton.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Because Fair Use depends on the specific context in which an image is used, we never use it as a reason to keep images on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Sreejith K (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- A cropped image is also available as File:User-Dineshkumar-Ponnusamy.jpg. Two personal images are not welcomed here in Commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Clumsly, unused variant of Commons logo. Edititing an SVG and saving it in the JPG format is a severe beginners mistake. Leyo 11:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also
--Sreejith K (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- These logos were created only to represent Commons logo with the name variation in other languages for any possible use, offline or online. I never claimed originality always acknowledged the main Commons logo files. If others feel this is totally unneeded, then my vote is also for Delete. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
- These logos were created only to represent Commons logo with the name variation in other languages for any possible use, offline or online. I never claimed originality always acknowledged the main Commons logo files. If others feel this is totally unneeded, then my vote is also for
Comment If they were in use somewhere we would definitely have no need to delete them. There is not really any need to delete them, but it is much better to edit SVG images with a vector drawing program like the inkscape (free) or adobe illustrator, rather than making JPGs. Wikimedia software can then automatically render them as bitmaps (eg PNG files) if you're using them in a situation that can't handle vector images. You could add text to the SVG images, but in general, it is best not to have text in images (as it restricts their use to that language) - instead just add a text caption (eg [[File:Commons-logo.svg|thumb|50px|ज़ानकारी]]). --Tony Wills (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)- Info Just found a related category with umpteen subcategories here. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
- If Hindustanilanguage wants to have these logos on Commons, (s)he just have to upload them as SVG or at least as PNG. JPG for logos is just a no go. --Leyo 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the JPG / Non-SVG / Non-PNG logos of Wikipedia on Commons are as follows:
- The list is incomplete and only four handpicked files are listed. The issue is not personal; if inspite of the above a consensus emerges for deletion, then my vote is for Delete. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC).
- The list is incomplete and only four handpicked files are listed. The issue is not personal; if inspite of the above a consensus emerges for deletion, then my vote is for
Deleted: Deleted the ones which were not in use, kept the ones which were. Agreed, SVG -> JPG = bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
doubtfully own work. created on "day of upload", but used before elsewhere (april 2011: http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/the-urge-for-survival-kaneto-shindo, 2010 http://cinema-ma.ru/articles/japan-cinema-part-1/), color version available http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/71176_81610252289_4804699_n.jpg only upload by this user. Added on day of upload by IP from Belgium to fr.wikipedia.org (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/91.180.112.235) Polarlys (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No basis given for claim that this image from "personal collection" qualifies as a free image. It's a lousy photo, too. Orlady (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Is uploader the copyright holder? Not so evident here. Sreejith K (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
DW of some satellite image; not the uploader's work High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Yann as copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Art-top as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo Sreejith K (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo d'une entreprise déposé sans autorisation accordée par le titulaire des droits. Thesupermat (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mauvaises couleurs Cafedelyon 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong colours is not a reason for deletion, but requested by uploader I think he considers it superseded by new version at File:Promenade en bord de mer (Menton, 1888). Evariste Carpentier.jpg. It would have been better to upload a new version over the old one, or to merge histories. It can be deleted assuming request in goog faith per image superseded. --V.Riullop (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uploader request, orphaned. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- mauvaise image scannée Cafedelyon (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- now asked in speedy with {{duplicate|Promenade en bord de mer (Menton, 1888). Evariste Carpentier.jpg}}. ----MGuf (d) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in use . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
._Evariste_Carpentier.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Art-top as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo Sreejith K (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The Speedy delete tagging by Art-top is clearly incorrect, because the file consist in simple geometric forms and is not eligible for Copyright and Fair use. {{Pd-textlogo}} is the most correct permission tag. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Rises above threshold of originality, in my opinion - the flag shape is complex, not a simple geometric form. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Art-top as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo Sreejith K (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The Speedy delete tagging by Art-top is clearly incorrect, because the file consist in simple geometric forms and is not elegible for Copyright and Fair use. {{Pd-textlogo}} is the most correct permission tag. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think the tag {{Pd-textlogo}} does not apply for European logos. Fma12 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Rises above threshold of originality, in my opinion - the flag shape is complex, not a simple geometric form. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We need the date of "publication" and some kind of proof or indication that this is not British work because in the time when this photo was shot British were the main photographers in this region. I don't know of any Indian or Pakistani photographers of that time. Without providing this important information the file should be Delete for lacking date of publication and other information. The {{PD-India}} makes it very clear about publication and information about the author of the work. Why is record of publication required and imporant? Because if it wasn't then you can find anyone's private old photos online and upload them here under PD-Inbdia.Officer (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The general rule is that if photo were taken in Indian or Pakistani soil and it remain over 50 years old, the photo automatically become free and public domain. I don't think you understand this part about the law. 123.211.72.151 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, why does it matter what the nationality of the photographer is? Isn't where it was taken/published more relevant? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The law is 50 years (now 60 in India) from publication, not creation. However, given the look of that photo (and the number of copies around the web like this one), it sure looks like it was scanned from a newspaper, and is not a modern reproduction of a photograph. Dina got married in 1938, and apparently did not spend too much time with Jinnah after that, so this presumably was taken before that (and definitely before 1948 when Jinnah died). It seems reasonable that it was published quite a while ago, but yes, perhaps we should have some better publication information -- could have come from a book about Jinnah after he died, or something like that. Still, somewhat on gut feeling, I'm leaning keep. The argument that "I don't know of any Indian or Pakistani photographers of that time" is awful; of course there were lots of them (are you suggesting that newspapers published in that era never had photographs?) Anyways, even if the photographer was British, the country of publication matters more -- and if that was colonial India, then I think we'd use India's law today, perhaps simultaneously published in Pakistan if something was done in that area. That was not part of the UK. So... reasonable request, as we may want references to see that publication did occur before 1951. Still, odds are extremely high that this was published in India and/or Pakistan, and pretty good odds that it was published more than 60 years ago. It'd be nice, given how many places this photo appears, to get some source info on it admittedly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Philosopher and Carl Lindberg, please read about who was the government before 1947 (Great Britian). We know that photographers in Pakistan-India were British at the time because we have 100s or probably 1,000s of their work stored in w:British Library. Can you at least point to one non-British photographer of that period in this region? If the photo was made by a British photographer then {{PD-UK}} applies here because it is work of UK or Grean Britain. I'm not too sure but {{PD-UK-unknown}} may apply for this one. You cannot use British works under PD-India or PD-Pakistan. When the 2 new states were created in 1947 they each wrote new constitutions. The laws of these 2 states only cover post-1947 images and only if they were created by Pakistani or Indian nationals. Assumption is not proof. On the PD-India it states: This file may not be in the public domain outside India. The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided.--Officer (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, the nationality of the author does not define the country of origin, it is the country of first publication. British India had their own laws; they were not part of the UK (British Empire, yes, United Kingdom, no). Yes, the UK Copyright Act mostly applied there at the time, but they were still not necessarily published in the United Kingdom and I'm not sure the UK could qualify as the country of origin today. If you want to call it simultaneously published in the UK, Pakistan, and India, fine at best, but even then Pakistan (with its 50 pma term) would be the country of origin as it has the shortest term (per the Berne Convention). Simultaneously published in India and Pakistan would be true at the very least, if published in that area before Pakistani independence. Now, if first published back in London (that did happen quite a bit too) then yes, the UK would be the country of origin. That is why we want to know publication info, yes, but it's also why these things should not be speedy deleted unless you actually have that publication info and know for sure things are still copyrighted based on when and where it was first published. As for Indian photographers -- goodness. There are a billion people there. w:The Indian Express was an Indian newspaper in that era (and there had to be lots and lots of others); or magazines like w:The Illustrated Weekly of India (founded 1880). I highly doubt they only employed British nationals when it was owned by Indians. You can look through w:Category:Indian photographers; w:T S Satyan and w:Homai Vyarawalla and w:Kulwant Roy show up with some random checking. Anyways, yes PD-India and PD-Pakistan most certainly apply to pre-1947 photos, if first published in British India -- that is a mistaken assumption on your part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno what you're saying but American soldiers in Afghanistan take photos everyday and they all fall under PD-USA not under Afghan law because the nationality of the author is American. If I'm British, I go to India and start taking pics how do my pics (my property) fall under PD-India? If I publish them in an Indian newspaper I still own rights to them and are still my pics and they don't fall under PD-India. If you read the w:Constitution of India and the w:Constitution of Pakistan, "The majority of the Indian subcontinent was under British colonial rule from 1858 to 1947..." Copyright law is directly connected to the nations' consitutions. Anything before 1947 cannot be legally claimed by Pakistan's government or India's government unless there was a treaty signed between the British and the new governments. Whoever took these photos are the authors and owners, if they were Europeans then the laws of Europe apply but if they were locals (people of British India) then PD-Pakistan or PD-India apply because upon them becoming citizens of these 2 states all their property is protected by these new laws. But all of this is worthless to talk about now. We have no idea who the authors are at this point nor do we have any information when the first time these pics were published. When it comes to things like this we need to reject the images until all relevant information is provided otherwise it is theft.--Officer (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is because Afghanistan is not a member of the Berne Convention, which then goes to other clauses in the Berne Convention. See Article 5 for the definition. In general, country of first publication is the country of origin, but they have provisions when works are "simultaneously published", which I think is the effective situation when one country splits into two (all previous works published in the former country were essentially published simultaneously in both new nations). If you are British, and you publish your photos in India, then India will be the country of origin. You will get full protection in the UK because of a separate provision (and probably in Europe due to their directive), but any other country, when using the rule of the shorter term, will compare their term against India's in that situation. That setup does let authors from non-Berne countries publish their works in a Berne country, and get protection that way. The URAA defines "source nation" slightly differently in the simultaneous publication situation, using the one with the "greatest contacts" with the work (so we would use Pakistan for something published in Islamabad probably, no matter when that happened). And no, copyright law is not connected to constitutions. There is always a body of law in an area; when a new government takes control, typically all laws remain in place, and are gradually changed. British India had lots of its own law, of course, which was different than UK law. Just like the American colonies had tons of their own local laws; the UK could pass laws which applied to them but there was always local law. And they will most certainly claim works made under British rule in their territory. British India was its own territory, ruled by the British of course, but it was not an integral part of the country, and was not UK territory exactly. For example, India joined the Berne Convention separately in 1928[3]; see here for a brief history of Indian Copyright law -- actually they were never directly subject to the UK Copyright acts but had their own laws (modeled on the UK ones of course). Anyways, yes, we should get some publication information (or at least some very solid indication) of early publication. We do need to reject the images if there really is no evidence, yes, but it's still not necessarily a copyright violation either (we delete per policy, but they may well still be PD). Even if you were right, UK law was 50 years from publication anyways, and there is no way Indian works would be subject to the EU directives which retroactively restored copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still a little confused about this "country of origin". I understand that wherever something is "published" (distributed and shown to the public at large) becomes the place where it was first published and each place has own law in protecting all published and un-published works. But there are other laws at the same time that protect people's property and privacy. I think only what was published in the newspapers, TV, cards, etc, in that form is considered PD but not the original pics. Unless it was lost or destroyed, the original photo of this (Jinnah and daughter) probably is with her (daughter) in the USA. My understanding is that legally it is her's property and unless she gives us written permission we wouldn't be allowed to upload the original photo. We can only upload images in the form of how they were published because anything other than that is a violation of privacy. Today almost every family has 1,000s upon 1,000s of private pics and the governments around the world cannot make a law to allow publication of these private pics regardless when they were created, unless a permission is obtained from the owner. Author and owner has to be distinguished when it comes to "permission". When you go to a shop where people have their photos made, the shop owner doesn't have permission to upload pics of their customers. Yes the shop is in fact the author but by law they are not the owners. The customers "paid" money to have their photo made. In this image we see a man and his daughter, but we don't have any info on who took this photo or where it was taken. If Jinnah paid the photographer to have his photo made then Jinnah is the owner and quite naturally his daughter would be the co-owner. I believe this is more likely what happened. On the other hand, if a photographer wanted to take a photo for himself then the "author / owner" would be that guy but we don't know all of that so this is another reason why we should reject disputed or missing info photos like this one.--Officer (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law is what governs the making of copies, which is what we are primarily concerned with here. Privacy rights typically end at death anyways, but no, uploading copies of such photos is not necessarily a privacy rights violation at all, unless the photo exposes private details. (Personality rights, governing use in advertising and similar commercial contexts, are separate and can last longer, but are not a reason for deletion.) Whether the original photo, or just the published version, is copyright-free is a matter of law -- if copyright has expired, then it has entered the public domain. Sometimes terms are based on date of publication, sometimes date of creation, or sometimes the date of death of the author (and determining if the original is published by virtue of being in a magazine is hardly ever defined, from what I've seen, though if there was a significant amount of expression in an original not published, I'd agree with you). Determining who the author is can also be a matter of law -- sometimes yes, the copyright in a commissioned portrait is deemed owned by the person who paid for the portrait, sometimes the photographer still owns that copyright but there is a separate "portrait right" given to the person pictured, and quite often the photographer is the only rightsholder (for example, with wedding photos in the U.S., unless specified differently by contract the wedding photographer will still fully own the copyrights, possibly subject to some privacy and other rights). If copyright law does give infinite terms to unpublished works, then yes all those private photos may still be under copyright. In India, that may be the case (though under the Indian Copyright Act 1914, replaced in 1957, photo terms were 50 years from creation, so photos taken before 1907 are still considered public domain regardless of publication). In Pakistan, it looks as though copyright will expire 50 years after creation if photos are not published in that time frame, or 50 years after publication if they are -- so many of those private photos no longer have copyright. The U.S. term for works created before 1978 but not published until after 2002 is 120 years from creation -- so private photos may be protected longer there, true, but not forever. Copyright is a government-created right; of course they have the ability to define the contours of that right. You need to look at the law which would govern use and terms and ownership in the country where you wanted to use it. Commons' policy is to use the U.S. copyright status and the status in the "country of origin" as defined by the Berne Convention (this is partly because such works would also be considered PD in countries which use the rule of the shorter term, though the U.S. does not use that rule). We are far less strict about other types of non-copyright restrictions. If first published in British India (most definitely a separate territory from the UK) it gets a bit complicated, because that territory encompasses modern-day Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, so such works could reasonably be considered "simultaneously published" in all three nations (though I'm not sure there is an explicit ruling to that effect), and the Berne definition says to use the country of those with the shortest term as the "country of origin". The U.S. has slightly different rules, using the country of the three with the "greatest contacts" with the work, when determining the URAA restorations (key to the U.S. copyright status). If the work was actually published or maybe created in territory of modern-day India, that is the country whose law would be used to determine URAA restorations regardless if Pakistan's term was shorter -- but Pakistan would be used if published there (or possibly created there, or by an author who lived there, etc.). But, all that is only if the work was first published in British India, which is where the uncertainty comes from and why those details are important -- they can greatly change the law which gets used. First publication in the UK or some other country changes lots of stuff. The question in this case is if there is enough evidence to make first publication in British India at least highly likely. It's possible we don't. There are different scans of this photo in many places on the web but I could not find any more specific source info on any of them. There were lots of books on Jinnah published in the 1940s though, so even if not in newspapers it is possible such images were published at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I searched google books, most books about Jinnah were written from 1960s and forward but a couple of them (1938-1940) showed up and these ones didn't contain images. Most of Jinnah's photos were made in the 1940s. It looks like these photos were first published in the 1960-present books. Indian and Pakistani newspapers were printed before the 1960s but I'm not sure if they contained photos. If we say "oh well this is an old photo it most likely was published somewhere" then that will cover all pre-1951 photos of everyone in this Palk-Indian region.--Officer (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law is what governs the making of copies, which is what we are primarily concerned with here. Privacy rights typically end at death anyways, but no, uploading copies of such photos is not necessarily a privacy rights violation at all, unless the photo exposes private details. (Personality rights, governing use in advertising and similar commercial contexts, are separate and can last longer, but are not a reason for deletion.) Whether the original photo, or just the published version, is copyright-free is a matter of law -- if copyright has expired, then it has entered the public domain. Sometimes terms are based on date of publication, sometimes date of creation, or sometimes the date of death of the author (and determining if the original is published by virtue of being in a magazine is hardly ever defined, from what I've seen, though if there was a significant amount of expression in an original not published, I'd agree with you). Determining who the author is can also be a matter of law -- sometimes yes, the copyright in a commissioned portrait is deemed owned by the person who paid for the portrait, sometimes the photographer still owns that copyright but there is a separate "portrait right" given to the person pictured, and quite often the photographer is the only rightsholder (for example, with wedding photos in the U.S., unless specified differently by contract the wedding photographer will still fully own the copyrights, possibly subject to some privacy and other rights). If copyright law does give infinite terms to unpublished works, then yes all those private photos may still be under copyright. In India, that may be the case (though under the Indian Copyright Act 1914, replaced in 1957, photo terms were 50 years from creation, so photos taken before 1907 are still considered public domain regardless of publication). In Pakistan, it looks as though copyright will expire 50 years after creation if photos are not published in that time frame, or 50 years after publication if they are -- so many of those private photos no longer have copyright. The U.S. term for works created before 1978 but not published until after 2002 is 120 years from creation -- so private photos may be protected longer there, true, but not forever. Copyright is a government-created right; of course they have the ability to define the contours of that right. You need to look at the law which would govern use and terms and ownership in the country where you wanted to use it. Commons' policy is to use the U.S. copyright status and the status in the "country of origin" as defined by the Berne Convention (this is partly because such works would also be considered PD in countries which use the rule of the shorter term, though the U.S. does not use that rule). We are far less strict about other types of non-copyright restrictions. If first published in British India (most definitely a separate territory from the UK) it gets a bit complicated, because that territory encompasses modern-day Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, so such works could reasonably be considered "simultaneously published" in all three nations (though I'm not sure there is an explicit ruling to that effect), and the Berne definition says to use the country of those with the shortest term as the "country of origin". The U.S. has slightly different rules, using the country of the three with the "greatest contacts" with the work, when determining the URAA restorations (key to the U.S. copyright status). If the work was actually published or maybe created in territory of modern-day India, that is the country whose law would be used to determine URAA restorations regardless if Pakistan's term was shorter -- but Pakistan would be used if published there (or possibly created there, or by an author who lived there, etc.). But, all that is only if the work was first published in British India, which is where the uncertainty comes from and why those details are important -- they can greatly change the law which gets used. First publication in the UK or some other country changes lots of stuff. The question in this case is if there is enough evidence to make first publication in British India at least highly likely. It's possible we don't. There are different scans of this photo in many places on the web but I could not find any more specific source info on any of them. There were lots of books on Jinnah published in the 1940s though, so even if not in newspapers it is possible such images were published at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still a little confused about this "country of origin". I understand that wherever something is "published" (distributed and shown to the public at large) becomes the place where it was first published and each place has own law in protecting all published and un-published works. But there are other laws at the same time that protect people's property and privacy. I think only what was published in the newspapers, TV, cards, etc, in that form is considered PD but not the original pics. Unless it was lost or destroyed, the original photo of this (Jinnah and daughter) probably is with her (daughter) in the USA. My understanding is that legally it is her's property and unless she gives us written permission we wouldn't be allowed to upload the original photo. We can only upload images in the form of how they were published because anything other than that is a violation of privacy. Today almost every family has 1,000s upon 1,000s of private pics and the governments around the world cannot make a law to allow publication of these private pics regardless when they were created, unless a permission is obtained from the owner. Author and owner has to be distinguished when it comes to "permission". When you go to a shop where people have their photos made, the shop owner doesn't have permission to upload pics of their customers. Yes the shop is in fact the author but by law they are not the owners. The customers "paid" money to have their photo made. In this image we see a man and his daughter, but we don't have any info on who took this photo or where it was taken. If Jinnah paid the photographer to have his photo made then Jinnah is the owner and quite naturally his daughter would be the co-owner. I believe this is more likely what happened. On the other hand, if a photographer wanted to take a photo for himself then the "author / owner" would be that guy but we don't know all of that so this is another reason why we should reject disputed or missing info photos like this one.--Officer (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is because Afghanistan is not a member of the Berne Convention, which then goes to other clauses in the Berne Convention. See Article 5 for the definition. In general, country of first publication is the country of origin, but they have provisions when works are "simultaneously published", which I think is the effective situation when one country splits into two (all previous works published in the former country were essentially published simultaneously in both new nations). If you are British, and you publish your photos in India, then India will be the country of origin. You will get full protection in the UK because of a separate provision (and probably in Europe due to their directive), but any other country, when using the rule of the shorter term, will compare their term against India's in that situation. That setup does let authors from non-Berne countries publish their works in a Berne country, and get protection that way. The URAA defines "source nation" slightly differently in the simultaneous publication situation, using the one with the "greatest contacts" with the work (so we would use Pakistan for something published in Islamabad probably, no matter when that happened). And no, copyright law is not connected to constitutions. There is always a body of law in an area; when a new government takes control, typically all laws remain in place, and are gradually changed. British India had lots of its own law, of course, which was different than UK law. Just like the American colonies had tons of their own local laws; the UK could pass laws which applied to them but there was always local law. And they will most certainly claim works made under British rule in their territory. British India was its own territory, ruled by the British of course, but it was not an integral part of the country, and was not UK territory exactly. For example, India joined the Berne Convention separately in 1928[3]; see here for a brief history of Indian Copyright law -- actually they were never directly subject to the UK Copyright acts but had their own laws (modeled on the UK ones of course). Anyways, yes, we should get some publication information (or at least some very solid indication) of early publication. We do need to reject the images if there really is no evidence, yes, but it's still not necessarily a copyright violation either (we delete per policy, but they may well still be PD). Even if you were right, UK law was 50 years from publication anyways, and there is no way Indian works would be subject to the EU directives which retroactively restored copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno what you're saying but American soldiers in Afghanistan take photos everyday and they all fall under PD-USA not under Afghan law because the nationality of the author is American. If I'm British, I go to India and start taking pics how do my pics (my property) fall under PD-India? If I publish them in an Indian newspaper I still own rights to them and are still my pics and they don't fall under PD-India. If you read the w:Constitution of India and the w:Constitution of Pakistan, "The majority of the Indian subcontinent was under British colonial rule from 1858 to 1947..." Copyright law is directly connected to the nations' consitutions. Anything before 1947 cannot be legally claimed by Pakistan's government or India's government unless there was a treaty signed between the British and the new governments. Whoever took these photos are the authors and owners, if they were Europeans then the laws of Europe apply but if they were locals (people of British India) then PD-Pakistan or PD-India apply because upon them becoming citizens of these 2 states all their property is protected by these new laws. But all of this is worthless to talk about now. We have no idea who the authors are at this point nor do we have any information when the first time these pics were published. When it comes to things like this we need to reject the images until all relevant information is provided otherwise it is theft.--Officer (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, the nationality of the author does not define the country of origin, it is the country of first publication. British India had their own laws; they were not part of the UK (British Empire, yes, United Kingdom, no). Yes, the UK Copyright Act mostly applied there at the time, but they were still not necessarily published in the United Kingdom and I'm not sure the UK could qualify as the country of origin today. If you want to call it simultaneously published in the UK, Pakistan, and India, fine at best, but even then Pakistan (with its 50 pma term) would be the country of origin as it has the shortest term (per the Berne Convention). Simultaneously published in India and Pakistan would be true at the very least, if published in that area before Pakistani independence. Now, if first published back in London (that did happen quite a bit too) then yes, the UK would be the country of origin. That is why we want to know publication info, yes, but it's also why these things should not be speedy deleted unless you actually have that publication info and know for sure things are still copyrighted based on when and where it was first published. As for Indian photographers -- goodness. There are a billion people there. w:The Indian Express was an Indian newspaper in that era (and there had to be lots and lots of others); or magazines like w:The Illustrated Weekly of India (founded 1880). I highly doubt they only employed British nationals when it was owned by Indians. You can look through w:Category:Indian photographers; w:T S Satyan and w:Homai Vyarawalla and w:Kulwant Roy show up with some random checking. Anyways, yes PD-India and PD-Pakistan most certainly apply to pre-1947 photos, if first published in British India -- that is a mistaken assumption on your part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of whether this image is PD in its source country, it may not be PD in the US under the URAA. According to en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights (see detailed notes at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_india), an Indian photo must be published before 1941 to be PD in the US, and there is not enough evidence to conclude that this one was - in fact I'd wager it probably wasn't. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Because of the presence of the dogs, there's a considerable chance that this photo was taken in London, during Jinnah's "exile" years. Regardless of that, I can't find any details on where and when it was first published, and without that we don't really have sufficient grounds for keeping it. Osiris (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Converted to DR by me from a speedy, by User:Edoderoo for "OTRS 2011080810015971, artist made mistake to share this under cc-by-sa and regrets. This was his only edit, please undo". --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: while it might be granted, the problem I see is, that this image was uploaded in December 2009! What will happen to the external re-users? (I've no idea if there are many or few). --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have explained to the artist, that deletion will mean that the visibility of the artwork will be less, not that the artwork will be "unfreed", as this is not possible in a legal point of view. If the artwork is used elsewhere, or will be re-uploaded by someone else, there is nothing we can do. Edoderoo (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's seen from the viewpoint of the uploader. How about the viewpoint of good-faith re-users, who didn't make a hard copy of our image page at the time when the image was still freely licensed? If he sues them, they will have a problem. As to my knowledge we (Commons) have no easy-to-use record/database/whatever for such cases (which might even include images that were found to be real copyvios only months or year after upload). --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest to make clear in the "edit summary" of the deletion (in case it will be deleted), that the image will still be free, with a remark to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971. In case the uploader will sue them for copyright violation, they can ask any OTRS-member to get the proof that the image is free, and still is, in a legal point of view, as well as that the uploader does know this information. My point is not to defend the uploaders right, just to be clear, but I do want to give him a chance to maybe spread the image less. Edoderoo (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's seen from the viewpoint of the uploader. How about the viewpoint of good-faith re-users, who didn't make a hard copy of our image page at the time when the image was still freely licensed? If he sues them, they will have a problem. As to my knowledge we (Commons) have no easy-to-use record/database/whatever for such cases (which might even include images that were found to be real copyvios only months or year after upload). --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have explained to the artist, that deletion will mean that the visibility of the artwork will be less, not that the artwork will be "unfreed", as this is not possible in a legal point of view. If the artwork is used elsewhere, or will be re-uploaded by someone else, there is nothing we can do. Edoderoo (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete, licenses are not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I usually don't trust people who make only 1 or 2 uploads, especially when they create a user name portraying to be a prominent artist who's paintings are on display in a major museum in Canada. This image does not even look like the famous one-eyed Sikh w:Ranjit Singh from India. He looks more like a European. I always say that the burden should be on the uploader to provide complete information so that we don't have to investigate.--Officer (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The license is valid, and the image is already all over the web. If the deletion request had come shortly after the upload, it would have made some sense, but it's pointless to delete the image now almost two years later. Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The previous kept is ridiculous, so what if the image is unlawfully used in many places? This image is beyond doubt a copyright violation because it's clearly protected by the copyright law of Canada. They show a scene in the movie w:Breakaway (2011 film) where this same painting is displayed at a museum in Canada. If we're going to keep this then we must also keep the Paintings by Tapand. Officer (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any proof for your claim of sockpuppeteering and the uploader not being the author? --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh come on now. I cover South Asia and I know all the sockmasters involved. The painting is covered under Canada's copyright law since it was published there first at a museum.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- So there is no proof. --Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as far as i understood the prev. discussion OTRS got an email by the artist himself claiming that he uploaded the file hinself but changed his mind some years later. Maybe an OTRS-member should recheck this ticket. --JuTa 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any OTRS in the history, if there is one it is likely prepared by someone who is not the painter and someone who the painter did not give permission to. This painting is at a museum in Canada.--Officer (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- "the prev. discussion OTRS got an email by the artist himself claiming that he uploaded the file hinself but changed his mind some years later." If this is true, then Keep this image per Commons:License revocation - the license is irrevocable and the artist cannot change their mind. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh come on now. I cover South Asia and I know all the sockmasters involved. The painting is covered under Canada's copyright law since it was published there first at a museum.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, that an image is protected by copyright, in Canada or elsewhere, does not make a valid free license (like CC or GFDL) from the author/copyright holder impossible. AFAIK, that's exactly the case here. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The painting was published in Canada and it is protected under Canadian copyright law. Manu Saluja is the painter and she wanted to delete the file from here.--Officer (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that you do not understand quite a number of things. If the author of an image puts that image under a free license, that does not mean that this image is not protected by copyright anymore. It only means that the author has granted usage rights for that image to everybody. The OTRS message referred to in this discussion was the reason for the first deletion request, see the post from Túrelio dated 13 August 2011, above. It seems that in that message to the OTRS, the author declared to indeed have uploaded that image himself, but two years later he now claimed to have done so by mistake and asked for deletion. I still haven't seen any proof for your "stolen image", "sock accounts" etc. claims. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I asked you what kind of proof do you want to see but you ignored me. According to the history of this file, the uploader did not provide OTRS info. The official website where this image is hosted says "Site content © Manu Saluja, 2009. All Rights Reserved". That means the uploader in 2009 copied the image from there.--Officer (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that you do not understand quite a number of things. If the author of an image puts that image under a free license, that does not mean that this image is not protected by copyright anymore. It only means that the author has granted usage rights for that image to everybody. The OTRS message referred to in this discussion was the reason for the first deletion request, see the post from Túrelio dated 13 August 2011, above. It seems that in that message to the OTRS, the author declared to indeed have uploaded that image himself, but two years later he now claimed to have done so by mistake and asked for deletion. I still haven't seen any proof for your "stolen image", "sock accounts" etc. claims. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that I overlooked your post from 14:45. So it seems you say that you suspect the sockpuppeteering etc. because of certain similarities etc. between those users you name. That would be called "circumstantial evidence" I guess, and it could be perhaps be used as basis for a precautionary deletion, but still it isn't anything that could really be called proof (like a Checkuser). Especially since we do seem to have that OTRS message saying that the author himself uploaded this image here under a free license. And that message is NOT in the file's version history, but mentioned in the first deletion request for this image. Here, if you prefer a link. --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the uploader is avoiding the discussions is additional evidence that he/she is a copyright infringer.--Officer (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's the way it could have been. Or not. I do not see any real convincing evidence that all those users and the IP user you mention are in fact the same person. Could someone with access to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971 evaluate whether that ticket is actually from the author or not? And please do not accuse me of "trying to have a stolen image stored in Commons", that is far from constructive when the whole point is whether this image was uploaded by the author or someone else in breach of copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the uploader is avoiding the discussions is additional evidence that he/she is a copyright infringer.--Officer (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please add the OTRS tag. -- Docu at 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which tag? --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- If my summary reading is correct, there is an OTRS ticket showing that the Commons uploader is the author. -- Docu at 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, the problem was that the author wanted to delete the image but the request was denied. I don't know what's the best solution.--Officer (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- If my summary reading is correct, there is an OTRS ticket showing that the Commons uploader is the author. -- Docu at 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept I have examined OTRS ticket #2011080810015971 which covers 18 messages to and from OTRS. The e-mails all come from the domain which is the artist's official web site and apparently come from the artist himself. Therefore I conclude that the e-mails are authentic.
In them the artist admits that he himself uploaded the image and licensed it as CC-BY-SA. This is a case, then, of an author changing his mind two years after the fact. We would do a substantial disservice to those who have used the image on the web and in print if we remove the image now. Since the license is irrevocable and the image appears in many places on the web, removing it from Commons would have little effect on its widespread use.
I have sympathy for users who make a mistake and want to correct it a week or two afterward, but waiting two years is too long.
. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The person who used a camera to make this digital image of a painting is Brian Boyle [4] (clicking on any of the bottom 3 images here will reveal the name, date and location), and the person who created the original artwork (the painting) is Manu Saluja [5]. The painting is displayed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada, which obviously means that it was published in Canada on the day it was displayed in said museum unless evidence is shown to the contrary. Officer (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Who is the actual author here (the painter, the photographer or the museum)? If it's the painter then how can she execute an OTRS ticket here? Also, the painting shows someone other than Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Can I paint a similar painting and label the person as Muhammad Ali Jinnah (or better yet as Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Omar) and then upload it to Commons? Isn't that making a mockery of a famous historical figure?--Officer (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Kept: This has already been litigated, twice. There is no new additional information here to merit a deletion of this image and I can confirm that the OTRS ticket says what other agents already said it says. --Majora (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Rasterized cladograms
[edit]Each of three images unlikely is something more than a degraded product of rasterization. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
A degraded version of File:Phylogenetic-Groups.svg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
A degraded version of File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev.svg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
A degraded version of some of SVG images, most likely File:Phylogenetic-Groups-Rev1.svg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Probably, File:Phylogenetic-Groups.svg because of Pisces. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- For images that claim that their source is the SVG image, then deletion is possible, but the delinker will not replace PNG usage with a SVG file. We won't delete these while still in use, so someone will have to replace the usage by hand. I'm not sure that it is sensible to redirect a PNG to an SVG, so we may break external uses (ie outside wikimedia) if we delete the PNGs. We are a media source for the whole web, so adding to link rot by removing images is not good. Some external applications can not substitute the use of an SVG for a PNG or JPG. Deleting superceded PNGs has always been contoversial, and so generally discouraged.
- And for images where it is not clear whether the PNG is actually the image that the SVG is based upon, or visa-versa we shouldn't delete anyway. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't follow any of this, but I have replaced the images in the articles that use them for reasons having to do with their content, not image technicalities. Still, shouldn't they be available in case someone wants to look at an old version of one of these articles (or revert my changes)? Peter M. Brown (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All uses replaced. In this case the PNGs were clearly generated from the SVGs, based on their names. Not too concerned about hotlinkers. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)