Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
no use on commons Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
personal image Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
personal unused image Chesdovi (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
copy from hong kong newspaper 太陽報 太刻薄 (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Copyvio}}. Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? – JBarta (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- What's the problem? Clearly you are not that impressed by Wiggle stereoscopy. Is the effect not working for you or does it work and you are opposed to such images being on Commons? I can understand why some people might not think they're worthwhile, but I disagree. I'm not the only one. The New York Public Library has an online gallery with such images. I think, at the very least, wiggle stereograph images are valuable because they allow people to see these images in their original context. File:Muir and Roosevelt restored.jpg is featured and a well known image known image outside of Wikis, but it was originally made as a stereograph card. A wiggle 3D image (File:Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir Yosemite stereography wiggle 3D.gif... also up for deletion) allows users to get a sense of how users were originally intended to view this image, and IMO, the image has different impact. Wiggle 3D is the easiest way rendering the image in stereo. It's the only way to do it without special equipment, and, as far as I am concerned, it's at least as good anaglyph images. We don't have file formats to handle any other type of 3D.
- Even in the case of a general opposition to wiggle 3D images, I think this one deserves to stay. The 3D effect is strong and the image is clear. It is worthwhile as a representation of wiggle 3D, and more effective than some of our current wiggle 3D images like File:Animacion_3b.gif.
- Unless I'm missing something, it seems like these just aren't appealing to you. I don't think that's a reason for deletion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - I see now that ridiculous monstrosity is actually a legitimate (and I use the term in the loosest manner possible) type of image and not some hallucinogenic-fueled creation of some bored editor. My nomination was in error. My apologies. – JBarta (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Denniss (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Where does one get the notion that this is a good idea? – JBarta (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm basically repeating my response from the other deletion you nominated. What's the problem? Clearly you are not that impressed by Wiggle stereoscopy. Is the effect not working for you or does it work and you are opposed to such images being on Commons? I can understand why some people might not think they're worthwhile, but I disagree. I'm not the only one. The New York Public Library has an online gallery with such images.
- I think, at the very least, wiggle stereograph images are valuable because they allow people to see these images in their original context. File:Muir and Roosevelt restored.jpg is featured and a well known image known image outside of Wikis, but it was originally made as a stereograph card. A wiggle 3D image allows users to get a sense of how users were originally intended to view this image, and IMO, the image has different impact. Wiggle 3D is the easiest way of rendering the image in stereo. It's the only way to do it without special equipment, and, as far as I am concerned, it's at least as good as anaglyph images. We don't have file formats to handle any other type of 3D.
- Unless I'm missing something, it seems like these just aren't appealing to you. I don't think that's a reason for deletion. I actually have a whole of other wiggle 3D images I made from stereocards. I'll hold off on uploading them.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination - I see now that ridiculous monstrosity is actually a legitimate (and I use the term in the loosest manner possible) type of image and not some hallucinogenic-fueled creation of some bored editor. My nomination was in error. My apologies. – JBarta (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Denniss (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
a naked vulva does not belong in an area easily accessible by minors 173.22.233.36 06:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep as this same ip made this same request two days ago with the same rationale and it was kept. Tm (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Wikipedia is not censored for minors, plus the photo is perfectly in scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Picture name and EXIF-data promotional, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Not so sure that PD-textlogo, as choosen by the uploader, is appropriate in this case, due to the background to the text and the crown. Might still be copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete The background is blurry, but the file clearly doesn't consist of just "simple geometric shapes and/or text." --Kam Solusar (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This picture was posted in an error and it is a copyright violation. Besides, it is not used in any wikipedia article. Kabeems (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
and File:Alee.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
| File also included in this DR: |
|---|
| *File:Dish Network.svg |
This is not a simple logo. The airwave symbols should easily meet the threshold of originality. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Easily below the US Threshold of Originality, it's just a dot with 4 upward-facing crescents below it. Fry1989 eh? 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: Fry1989 (talk • contribs) is the uploader of the file that is the subject of this DR. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- And how is that relevant? Are uploaders not allowed to defend their file when it's nominated? Besides, I didn't even create it, I simply retouched the old Dish Network logo. The fact that the Best Western logo below uses a very similar font but was denied and is a prime example in our US entry at COM:TOO also shows that this file is too simple as well. Fry1989 eh? 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a copyright logo COM:FAIRUSE, and we can always send over the Wiki, with the proper fair use rational. Jetijones (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? You can't copyright a dot and four crescents in the US, it's way below other PD-ineligible US images. Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the dot and crescents, it's the lettering the font style. You have consider the logo as a whole. Jetijones (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Distinctive fonts are rarely considered copyrightable in the US, unlike in the UK. Look at File:Best Western logo.svg which uses a similar font but is in the US entry for COM:TOO. The nomination was for the "airwave" part which is not copyrightable either, and that's why I reiterated that part. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep According to Wikipedia, this seems to be a US logo. File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Nikken Logo.jpg were ruled as not being copyrightable in the United States and both the Best Western and the Nikken logos look more complex than the two logos discussed here. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - PD-textlogo applies. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
SNOWed: It's obvious where this is going. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
File:DzKK BG (85).jpg
File:DzKK BG (84).jpg
File:DzKK BG (83).jpg
File:DzKK BG (133).jpg
File:DzKK BG (130).jpg
File:DzKK BG (129).jpg
File:DzKK BG (125).jpg
File:DzKK BG (119).jpg
File:DzKK BG (116).jpg
File:DzKK BG (108).jpg
File:DzKK BG (107).jpg
File:DzKK BG (106).jpg
File:DzKK BG (105).jpg
File:DzKK BG (104).jpg
File:DzKK BG (103).jpg
File:DzKK BG (102).jpg
File:DzKK BG (101).jpg
File:DzKK BG (100).jpg
File:DzKK BG (99).jpg
File:DzKK BG (98).jpg
And many many more....
A gallery containing all images in question is here.
Has the Turkish Navy seal superimposed. I thought that was copyrighted and couldn't be here Takabeg, did you change your mind or does that only apply to other users and not yourself? I find it ironic that someone who nominated a freely-made SVG of the Turkisn Navy seal 3 times for deletion exclaiming it as a copyright violation would subsequently upload dozens of images with a non-freely made version of same seal superimposed. Surely the OTRS would only apply to the photo, not the superimposed seal. Fry1989 eh? 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - As there are many dozens of these images and it would be a shame to delete them all for such a trivial reason, and taking into consideration that a proper watermark removal for all these images would be quite time consuming, I propose the following temporary measure... block out the seal as I've done with DzKK BG (85).jpg. This solves the copyright issue and is relatively easy to do until they can be dealt with in a more appealing manner. We can create a gallery of these images and link to it in the Graphic Labs 1 2 and various editors can either block out the seal or remove it proper. All that said, if Takabeg has access to non-watermarked images, that would be supremely helpful and I would urge him to re-upload those if indeed it is determined the seal is problematic.– JBarta (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cropping the photos only partially solves the problem, though the Turkish Navy could object to them being altered in any form, and then cropping would be moot. Either way, it doesn't solve the fact that Takabeg nominated for deletion a freely made version of the seal 3 different times till he finally got his way, and then half a year later uploads dozens and dozens of images with a non-freely made version of the seal superimposed, it shows a sense of "rules dt apply to me". Fry1989 eh? 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Once the images are uploaded here under a proper license, they may be modified in any way... including removing the seal. While I understand your bewilderment at Takabeg's sense of the rules, that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is whether the seals are problematic, and if they are, what to do about it. – JBarta (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's absolutely relevant, because whether or not the seal can stay superimposed on the photos here or not can affect whether or not the freely made SVG of the seal can be undeleted or not, and Takabeg's opinion on this matter ironically influences the later. Fry1989 eh? 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can you point to the deletion discussions regarding that SVG seal? They may be useful here. – JBarta (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go, actually he only nominated it twice, once himself and a second time through a "friend". It was another file he nominated 3 times. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yet another long and rambling discussion. I reviewed it quickly and have no interest in getting involved with it. I'll bow out here and defer to my original suggestion that if the seal remains problematic it can be dealt with. And yes, Takabeg's actions are indeed curious and it would be interesting to hear his rationale for uploading all these images with a seal he argued did not belong on Commons. – JBarta (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go, actually he only nominated it twice, once himself and a second time through a "friend". It was another file he nominated 3 times. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can you point to the deletion discussions regarding that SVG seal? They may be useful here. – JBarta (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's absolutely relevant, because whether or not the seal can stay superimposed on the photos here or not can affect whether or not the freely made SVG of the seal can be undeleted or not, and Takabeg's opinion on this matter ironically influences the later. Fry1989 eh? 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Once the images are uploaded here under a proper license, they may be modified in any way... including removing the seal. While I understand your bewilderment at Takabeg's sense of the rules, that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is whether the seals are problematic, and if they are, what to do about it. – JBarta (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cropping the photos only partially solves the problem, though the Turkish Navy could object to them being altered in any form, and then cropping would be moot. Either way, it doesn't solve the fact that Takabeg nominated for deletion a freely made version of the seal 3 different times till he finally got his way, and then half a year later uploads dozens and dozens of images with a non-freely made version of the seal superimposed, it shows a sense of "rules dt apply to me". Fry1989 eh? 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep As long as I knonw, the Turkish Naval Forces accepted {{Attribution}} for their all photographs in their website, with sending an e-mail to User:Bermanya. For details, you can ask OTRS member User:Taysin. As to whether we can upload their seal (bröve ) separately (because users who lived in Turkey and/or who came from the Turkish Wikipedia know that the "seal" is not PD very well), User:Bermanya asked them and focused especially on it, but there is no clearness on the status of their "seal". You can ask User:Taysin about the status of their "seal". Takabeg (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- If the status of the seal is unclear you should not have uploaded until you figured it out. Especially after all the effort you made to get the SVG deleted. Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Seals on photographs constitute no problem. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case, and attribution of photographs are allowed as you claim, than the SVG can be undeleted, because it was deleted as a "derivative" of the seal on the photos. Fry1989 eh? 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- If need, the seal on images can be removed as watermark. But please don't remove it on File:DzKK BG (91).jpg. Because they intentionally put it in the center of picture. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- If it has to be removed from one, it has to be removed from all. Fry1989 eh? 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Seals on photographs constitute no problem. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In conclusion, Takabeg claims that the seal being superimposed on the photos are fine as long as they're attributed. With that reasoning, they can stay, and the SVG seal can be undeleted because it was only deleted as being a derivative of the image on the photos. Takabeg, you can't have it both ways, either the seal is ok and it stays on the photos and the SVG is undeleted, or it's not ok, and it must either be removed from these photos, or the photos themselves must be deleted. Take your pick. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's nothing but your POV. For their "seal" ("bröve"), you can ask User:Taysin.Takabeg (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's a simple fact. If the seal on the photos is fine, and our SVG was made based on that image, then the SVG is fine too. So take your pick. Also, insisting on calling it a bröve changes nothing. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I will say this.... Takabeg, you cannot have it both ways. If the seal is not allowed on Commons, then it is not allowed anywhere on Commons... including any and all photographs containing the seal. If it is allowed, then these photos are fine and the SVG can be undeleted. Personally I think the seal should be allowed and an SVG of the seal should be undeleted and all involved should move on and find something more significant to argue about. – JBarta (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The seal was not allowed on Commons, because these images were uploaded without permission. It was natural to be deleted. And I don't known the status of their emblem in detail. As long as I understand their e-mail that allows us to use their photographs, they permit usage of their photograph whether they involves emblem or not. At the same time, they states that they have no intention to give up the:r copyrights on both photographs and emblem. In short, 1. they want to keep their copyrights on photographs and emblem. 2. They permitted usage of photographs, but they didn't mention on the separately usage of emblem. This is their preference, not ours. Takabeg (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Takabeg, as Fry1989 has correctly pointed out, if permission was granted here to upload these photos with a seal, then any derivative of these images or any part of the image is allowed. Therefore a derivative in the form of an SVG version of the seal is allowed. Again Takabeg, you cannot have it both ways. Whether by iself or within another image, either the seal is allowed or it is not. Period, end of story. – JBarta (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be quite frank, Takabeg's personal opinion is no longer pertinent. He says that the permissions provided include the seal in the photos. If that's the case, whether he likes it or not (more likely not), the SVG as a derivative of the image on the photos is therefore also allowed. Fry1989 eh? 02:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot understand why you are continuing personal attack. I didn't send an e-mail for permission to User:Bermanya, the Turkish Naval Forces sent it to him. So the preference belongs to them, not to me. And I cannot understand why you don't try Commons:Undeletion requests.Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Will you please get over yourself? I have never personally attacked you ever. The fact is that if the seal is ok on the photos, as you yourself claim, than our SVG which you so vehemently tried to get deleted, as a derivative of the photo, is also ok and will be undeleted. That is a clear and simple fact. Two users have said that you can not have this both ways Takabeg, so either these photos stay and the seal is undeleted, or your photos are deleted as well. Now, since Taysin has confirmed below that permission is given, I move for this to be closed as a Keep, and File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg be undeleted as a derivative.. Fry1989 eh? 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Will you please get over yourself? I have never personally attacked you ever. The fact is that if the seal is ok on the photos, as you yourself claim, than our SVG which you so vehemently tried to get deleted, as a derivative of the photo, is also ok and will be undeleted. That is a clear and simple fact. Two users have said that you can not have this both ways Takabeg, so either these photos stay and the seal is undeleted, or your photos are deleted as well. Now, since Taysin has confirmed below that permission is given, I move for this to be closed as a
- I cannot understand why you are continuing personal attack. I didn't send an e-mail for permission to User:Bermanya, the Turkish Naval Forces sent it to him. So the preference belongs to them, not to me. And I cannot understand why you don't try Commons:Undeletion requests.Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Turkish Naval Forces gave permission for the use under the {{Attribution}}. This was confirmed by an official e-mail. No. 2012061210008721 stored with the ticket (permissions-commons). Requirement of use: it's enough for you to show the field name "http://www.dzkk.tsk.tr" as source. --taysin (message) 11:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS 2012061210008721 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mabdul as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html.en states: "If you're making non-commercial use of Tor software, you may also use the Tor onion logo (as an illustration, not as a brand for your products). Please don't modify the design or colors of the logo. You can use items that look like the Tor onion logo to illustrate a point (e.g. an exploded onion with layers, for instance), so long as they're not used as logos in ways that would confuse people." - that would be CC-BY-ND-NC and thus not suiteable for commons
I am converting the speedy tag to a DR per this unDR request. Fry1989 eh? 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- This request should also include File:Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg. Thuresson (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The UnDR request was simply for temporary undeletion so it can be copied to a local project under a fair use rationale. However... at the top level of the media.torproject.org website, there is a README which does explicitly say the content there is CC-BY-3.0 unless otherwise noted. That includes the SVG logo. The original reason for deletion, as linked above, is a *trademark* FAQ, which has nothing to do with copyright, and prohibiting commercial use of the *trademark* does not preclude it being hosted here; that is a separate topic from copyright. Keep actually; the CC-BY-3.0 license seems pretty explicit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: non-commercial is only about trademark User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission of the original photographer (Boris Mikhailov) Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source field says "image taken from the internet". There is no evidence that the image is free. Asclepias (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo is clearly not under a Creative Commons license and was taken from ESPN.com. This source states that the photo was taken by Leon Halip, for Getty Images, meaning it is obviously copyrighted. Delaywaves • talk 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source field says "image taken from the internet". There is no evidence that the image is free. Asclepias (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source field says "image taken from the internet". There is no evidence that the image is free. Asclepias (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source field says "image taken from the internet". There is no evidence that the image is free. Asclepias (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source field says "image taken from the internet". There is no evidence that the image is free. Asclepias (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image, better png and svg versions available, and not in (aritcle) use. Buttons (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image, better png and svg versions available, and not in use. Buttons (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work without original authors permission. Art-top (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also (all files uploaded by User:MudarHM):
- File:TblACTIVITIES.png
- File:EditActivity.png
- File:ACTIVITY.png
- File:EditLocation.png
- File:TCSettings.png
- File:Options2of2.png
- File:Options1of2.png
- File:EditJOB.png
- File:TblJOBS.png
- File:SPDS.png
- File:ALRP.png
- File:LCTP.png
- File:JOB.png
- File:DONE.png
- File:ALTP.png
- File:INFO.png
- File:BILL.png
- File:TblBDGT.png
- File:ESTM.png
- File:BDGT.png
- File:Budget.png
- File:CostCard.png
- File:AssignProg.png
- File:AssignPlan.png
- --Art-top (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative works uploaded without permission confirmed. RE rillke questions? 21:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not artistic, not educational - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This file is used on a website (here : https://www.bird-office.com/location-salle/131539-reserver-salle-de-reunion-joliment-decoree-pour-12-personnes-a-paris-9eme) , so probably infringe copyright laws
gpesenti (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Would require OTRS confirmation. --Majora (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Web-resolution image uploaded by a user whose all other uploads have been copyright violations. Unlikely own work, and probably out of scope as well. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not artistic, not educational - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality, seems copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: useless George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"scott next to a banana", oos? unless this could be used to show pool inflatables, or alcohol consumption in a swimming pool? Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos, author's own work? Chesdovi (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos Chesdovi (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, bad quality - "we have too many" dog images Chesdovi (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
article submission of non-notable person declined Chesdovi (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: not realistically useful for any educational purpose. -- 131.107.0.85 11:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also: File:My dear friend Mrs Francesca Montana with my 45 years old 6 ft jade tree..jpg. --Art-top (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of focus. Can be superceded in all instances by better, in-focus picture File:P1000042Vigelandpark.JPG. Herostratus (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 15:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see OTRS #2012070510006137. FIFA doesn't allow the commercial use of your trademarks Ezarateesteban 14:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- please provide links to laws which forbid using trophy photos.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see OTRS #2012070510006137, FIFA doesn't allow the commercial use of your trademarks Ezarateesteban 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A photograph of a trophy apparently taken in Italy, which does not have freedom of panorama, Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fma12 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which country laws forbid it? Plese give links to (or provide citations from) law acts.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is a COM:DW of a copyrighted artwork. The author of needs to be dead for at least 70 years so that we can use a public domain license. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copa Mundial de la FIFA.jpg --217.246.204.91 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, before the Cup the trophey made some relay during the cities. And in that cities people can make photos with the trophy. The trophy arrive to the city especially to get people a chance to make photo with it.
- If my English is not understandable, I say in Russin: Перед чемпионатом трофей делает путешествие по разным городам страны, где выставляется для того, чтобы люди могли с ним сфотографироваться. По-вашему получается, что люди, когда с ним фотографируются, нарушают законы? Получается, что выставляя трофей в каждом городе, организаторы сознательно толкают людей на преступление?--Anatoliy (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see OTRS #2012070510006137 FIFA doesn't allow the comercial use of your trademarks Ezarateesteban 14:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Plaque on Wimbledon Court No. 18 to commemorate the longest match in tennis history between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut on 22-24 June 2010.jpg
[edit]Is the copyrighted Wimbledon logo really de minimis? There is no COM:FOP#United Kingdom for 2D works. 84.61.149.75 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restored following Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-08#File:Plaque on Wimbledon Court No. 18 to commemorate the longest match in tennis history between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut on 22-24 June 2010.jpg. Not enough original text to get a copyright. The logo is de minimis. Yann (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
REBECCA MASTRORILLI 151.33.132.203 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep English: You do not really understand the motivation of a possible cancellation of the photo. What do you mean Rebecca Mastrorilli? It can be more specific, thanks!Italiano: Non si capisce bene la motivazione di un'eventuale cancellazione della foto. Cosa vuol dire Rebecca Mastrorilli? Si può essere più specifici, grazie!--Dapa19 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep English: I don't get why it should be removed.. "Rebecca Mastrorilli" is not a reason..Italiano: Non capisco perchè dovrebbe essere cancellata.. "Rebecca Mastrorilli" non è un motivo--Slevin K (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept; no reason to delete offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
ola a todos AndreeaLove (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ola a Ud. Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The flickr user "Don O'Brien from Piketon, Ohio" is highly likely not the auth or or copyright holder of this image High Contrast (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have uploaded this file. I can't say nothing about it, just that I trust the copyright tags in flickr and that the Don O'Brien from flickr has already his own category in commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Don_O%27Brien . TKostolany (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nice. But as I said - Don O'Brien is highly likely not the author of this photograph. --High Contrast (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am just curious to know how you know this and what you are planning to do with all the files that have already been uploaded. TKostolany (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nice. But as I said - Don O'Brien is highly likely not the author of this photograph. --High Contrast (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you really understand what the problem is? Do not create wild speculations and generalizations out of this DR. We are talking about this image not about his other uploads. Again for you: "Don O'Brien" from flickr is a user who uploads his images on flickr under free licenses which is definately ok there and it is ok to transfer them to Commons since they are license compatible. To this image: this image is from Korea in 1945. The question is if it possible that the flickr uploader really took this image in that time there. One can imagine that the photographer of this file should be quite old. On Commons lots of such images get transferred to Commons which were uploaded on flickr by any user who placed some file under a free license without having the permission to do so. This could also be the problem here with this image because this image is so old. I would appreciate it if we can keep this image but we must be very sure that everything is ok with it. --High Contrast (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, Thanks. Now I understand your concern. According to him, he is really an old men. You can see him for example as a small child in 1928 : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChristmasEveOhio1928.jpg. His comments really seem trustworthy. It is then quite likely that he could have been a photograph during the military occupation of Korea in 1945 by th US. I am also amazed that he has made such impressive photos and that is now in his age a contributor to flickr. TKostolany (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept Don O'Brien from Ohio has been an avid photographer most of his long life, including when he was stationed in Korea after the end of World War II (he states October 1945 to January 1946, as can be seen by anyone who bothers to look at the set on his Flickr stream this is from). I really don't think this would have even been nominated for deletion discussion and the "highly likely not" assertion made if the nominator had spent some time looking at the Flickr photographer's stream to make an evaluation about the plausibility of their authorship informed by context. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The current version of the Army National Guard Seal on Wiki, File:US Army National Guard Insignia.svg, is unofficial and incorrect. The U.S. Army Institute Of Heraldry has only one authorized and official seal for the Army National Guard.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=4228
The device was authorized by NGR 750-58 for use in marking material. It was authorized as the seal for the Army National Guard on 28 August 1989. Description Centered on a light blue disc edged red, a representation of the Minute Man Statute by Daniel French in bronze detailed black facing to the right, all enclosed by a blue border bearing the words ARMY NATIONAL GUARD at the top and five stars below all in white. The version with the edged gold is incorrect.
Okanos (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This issue started when Okanos uploaded File:Army National Guard Seal.jpg and started replacing the SVG with it on English Wikipedia. He was reverted by two users (including myself) three times and told not to replace an SVG graphic with a raster version. I also nominated File:Army National Guard Seal.jpg for deletion here on Commons, at which point Okanos uploaded the file a second time as File:Army National Guard Insignia.jpg to bypass the DR. I added that second file to the same deletion. Once it was clear to Okanos that his replacements would not be accepted on English Wikipedia, he then finally left the same message on my talk page and the DR talk page, giving the Army Institute of Heraldry website as a source which states the seal is bordered in red and not gold. With that source, I have corrected this SVG file to have a red border instead of a gold one. That should have solved the issue, but apparently Okanos is harder to please. However, this is a bad DR, and obviously the SVG should and will be kept for the reasons stated by myself. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
--Okanos (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) My intentions were not to bypass protocols. My apologies, I am new to wiki and just need to get this task accomplished. Our organization would like all the unauthorized and unofficial Seals removed from the pages representing us (The United States Army National Guard). I thank you for correcting us on what the proper format for this image is. If you can help, I would appreciate it. I understand you said you have corrected the SVG file to have a red border instead of a gold one. How long will this take to update? As of the time if this message, the file” <File:US Army National Guard Insignia.svg> , still shows the gold border. We would just like to have this matter resolved and ensure the correct seal is replaced on all wiki pages and websites. Thank you for any help you can provide us.
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Benjaz1213 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:TorreParroquia.jpg
- File:PrimeraPiedra.jpg
- File:Inauguran.jpg
- File:Congreso Local Zac.jpg
- File:Palacio Gobierno.jpg
- File:PrimeraCasa FenandoCampa.jpg
- File:Tumbade FernandoCampa.jpg
- File:Hacienda de SanMateo.jpg
- File:PanoramicaValpa.jpg
- File:JardinValpa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like you are right:
- Search result for File:TorreParroquia.jpg: File [on http://www.ciudadargentum.com/productos_venta.php]
- File:Tumbade FernandoCampa.jpg: File on various pages
- File:Inauguran.jpg is also stolen: File or from there?
-- RE rillke questions? 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and some proven copyright violations. RE rillke questions? 21:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Benjaz1213 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Files uploaded by Benjaz1213 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No EXIF data, small size, user blocked undef. for copyvios, unlikely to be own works.
Yann (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Housma123hay (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Cannes+Chacun+Son+Cinema+Premiere+xCixe7zeJKTl.jpg (deleted as obvious copyvio published in 2011 --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:Ashraf-barhom-01.jpg (deleted Copyright Richard Chavez --99of9 (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:080914173244mira140908a2.jpg (deleted as obvious copyvio, full resolution here --99of9 (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:Naidid.jpg (deleted - higher res on he-wiki says it's copyright fair-use. --99of9 (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:A samira.jpg (deleted - obviously not own work as claimed, it's a B/W scan. Without PD rationale we cannot keep it. --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:446323394rkzbp1tf.jpg (deleted as obvious copyvio news published March 1st (before upload). --99of9 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
- File:Salem-Khamis.jpg (deleted pre-existing use on company biography page. Would at least need OTRS. --99of9 (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) )
- File:79prize04 wa.jpg (deleted - there's even a website watermark on this one! --99of9 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep unproved, & inappropriate use of mass-nomination. lack of exif data IS NOT evidence of copyvio. please provide rationales for the deletion of each nominated item. doing this as a mass-nom also violates agf & "don't bite the noobs".
should be split into individual nominations, with individual rationales/evidence for serious consideration.
FINALLY: the uploader seems to use arabic as their primary language & at least some of these files are IN-USE @ the arabic wikip. has anyone even bothered to provide translation? Lx 121 (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment To rule out a few objections:
- In-use speaks to COM:SCOPE, not to COM:L. This nomination is about evaluating whether the files are in fact own work.
- The standard deletion template is already translated into Arabic. That should be good enough to at least start a conversation (if the user was interested). However the only edits the user has made on Commons are the uploads, so I guess their silence is because they are no longer around.
- Lack of exif and small sizes are both certainly positively correlated with copyvio. Although obviously not definitive, it's a useful thing to mention in a DR relating to suspicions about own work.
--99of9 (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: To be thorough I've gone through and proven that all were copyvios, but frankly Eugene's mass-nom was fair enough, as a set they looked very suspicious. Some would investigate one or two and put them all up for speedy-delete, but if there was not enough time to fully investigate at the time, a mass nomination for further discussion was appropriate. The end result just demonstrates that Eugene has a good eye for spotting copyvios, and is welcome to put up more noms like this. Thanks for finding 8 illegal files in one go. 99of9 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alanserantes
[edit]Personal pictures of user, not in use anywhere and not usefull, so out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright highly unlikely owned by uploader... no photography allowed during telecast, this looks like photograph taken by official Miss Universe Organisation photographer & copyright MUO. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, not simple logo. Art-top (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio? I doubt this logo is free. Trijnsteltalk 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 16:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this particular image at the given website; given website asserts copyright and I don't see a CC release on it. DMacks (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - derivative work without original author permission. Art-top (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
not useful gallery AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This DR follows a discussion on Commons:Bistro, the French village pump on Wikimedia Commons. This media, from the corporate behind the project Mars One, contains the notice "File usage approved by Mars One team under Wiki Commons". This notice means we have the authorization to publish the file on Wikimedia Commons. It doesn't mean the copyright holder licenses under a CC-BY-SA license. An OTRS permissions would be needed for that. Dereckson (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The permission is available, it'll be integrated soon, please don't delete in the meantime. Thanks. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you already send it to OTRS? --Dereckson (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, done that. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing found about "Mars One" in the permission queues. When has the email been sent, and to which address? --Krd 16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, done that. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you already send it to OTRS? --Dereckson (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've received an official declaration by the Mars One team, that says Wiki can use all their images as long as the website is credited. How would this be expressed via license here? Please don't delete. Thanks. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader declared in June he got a proper licensing solution. Now, we learn this license is only to use the pictures on "Wiki". This doesn't satisfy COM:LICENSE guidelines. Please ask them if they're willing to license their picture under a free license for everybody. If so, the OTRS volunteer will then be able to restore your picture (COM:OTRS contains link to permissions template they can use). Dereckson (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Watermark with name Culex (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Not a reason for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos, author's own work? (image is not shown on userpage) Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos, author's own work? Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos, author's own work? Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos, probable bogus "own work" claim Chesdovi (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope? Chesdovi (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
user is using the lower res. version File:Nick king.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No signs of PD picture. Kyro (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Plagio de http://erideediciones.es/vicky-tejero-la-rosa/ Shalbat (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused, badly named duplicate of File:Escudo Cabimas.PNG. Rd232 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The photographs contained in the scheme might not be own work. Leyo 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This could be deleted. File:WURTH.png is available and can be used instead. We should not keep multiple files of the same company logo. The jpeg version has artifacts anyway. Could be processed as {{Duplicate}}? McZusatz (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this advice - we agree in deletion and already changed the logo to File:WURTH.png. Wuerthag 09:30, 20 June 2012
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
1. Wird nicht mehr benötigt, da durch Datei:Karte_Markgräfler_Wiiwegli_02.jpg mit einem geringfügig veränderten Bildausschnitt ersetzt wurde. Comanderkeen (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No true SVG format. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless, promotional Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship for this scanned in low resolutinon images of famous persons. Art-top (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also nominated: File:Sapphires and Brothers 1979.jpg with duplicate File:Sapphires 1979.JPG. --Art-top (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly scanned, caption says "1970s", but dated "2004" and "2012" respectively. Look like may be personal photos from the 1970s. Uploader - please read Commons:Derivative works if you haven't already. What matters for copyright and uploading to commons is the ORIGINAL authorship -- did you take these photos back in the 1970s? If not, who did? -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Lacking essential information as to actual authorship, source. (Also uncat since Feb and missing info to establish if within project scope) -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work. It was originally part of a plaque and there's no information how the plaque or the coat of arms was created. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities. Eleassar (t/p) 08:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- By the bird poo that was on it, I'd say it's in a public space. Then it becomes aFOP issue. Slovenia allows publication when the author has died in or before 1944. I think that is the case here. Vera (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the copyrighted Wimbledon logo really de minimis? There is no COM:FOP#United Kingdom for 2D works. 84.61.149.75 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would submit that the logo is an incidental item in the overall picture, and that the photograph should stay as posted without deletion. Harperbruce (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why you'd need to delete an entire photo because of a tiny part. Just blur the damn logo if it's a problem. ZeroOne (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Close as Kept. I'd say the visible logo is de minimis, but if there is disagreement on that point that detail can be blurred. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France, all this building are copyrighted PierreSelim (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a general view of La Défense. The picture do not focus on any building.--Paris 16 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are only 3 or 4 buildings on thoses photography it's not a general view. The buildings are clearly in focus, they cannot be "accessories" to thoses pictures as they are the main subjects. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep can be considered as a cityscape. Jeriby (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is a tricky case, but I think both pictures can be analysed as city landscapes, for which French case laws traditionally tends to apply De minimis. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Originally deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Skyscrapers in La Defense. After a discussion on COM:UNDEL, it was decided to unbundle and rerun all the discussions individually in order to allow more opportunity to discuss, for each image, whether COM:DM or some other exception applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This one is close because there are fewer buildings than a typical cityscape, but I think this still qualifies as DM since a large part of the image is devoted to the uncopyrightable roads and light trails, making the individual buildings an accessory to the overall composition. See also comments in the prior DR from 2012. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per King of Hearts and also the prior DR discussion in 2012. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: I think we can keep it as landscape image. --rubin16 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Slevin K (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete orphan, poor blurry image of person we have multiple much better images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Speedy (No information about the author.) Sreejith K (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've uploaded this file erroneously and think it should be deleted because it lacks information about the author. I don't see any convincing argument that they would be anonymous. In the source country, works of authors who died in 1945 or later are still copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as being outside of project scope. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Also this image can be found on copyrighted website in color. --Smooth_O (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
bad license, coporate logo uploaded as own work, see http://www.mu-sigma.com/ Holyoke, mass (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. There is gloss in the logo and thus may be copyrightable. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The wikipedia page gives information about Mu Sigma. Using the logo is not a copyright. Other wiki pages like deloitte's have the logo as well. The request for deletion of logo is not acceptable. I have taken permission from Mu Sigma to use the logo. 121.242.128.130 04:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.149.75 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - There is indeed no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. However, on this picture part of a building and street view represent a city view, the image does not single out or shows a detailed view of the copyright protected building, so this is de minimis. Kvdh (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.149.75 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Another nonsense nomination.--Zuydkamp (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - There is indeed no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. However, on this picture this part of a building represents a city view, the image does not single out or shows a detailed view of the copyright protected building, so this is de minimis. Kvdh (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor. 83.61.124.239 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bundesarchiv give us permission to use its photos. If BA gives permission, so it has rights for it. BA is serious organization and will not avoid copyrights.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I can see no evidence that the Univeristy of Bremen has released the image under the license provided. Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
My name is Georg Heygster of the Unversity of Bremen. I am the author of the image and herwith give the license to no-commercial use. I could not identify if or which more formal steps are required to give this license. heygster@uni-bremen.de
Comment see Commons:OTRS please Ezarateesteban 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Georg, non-commercial ist leider nicht "frei genug" für Wikipedia/Commons, siehe Commons:Lizenzen#Welche Lizenz ist OK?. --El Grafo (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A PUF. The uploader has a habit of making false claims of authorship and cannot be trusted anymore. It is highly unlikely that he might have even met the subject of this photograph! Lovy Singhal (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Lovy for pointing out this mistake. When this photo was uploaded by me in the month of October 2011, I was not aware of such type of complicated rules. Now I have revised the file history as under. Please see it and suggest me what else can be done in this case further to keep this image on commons.
{{|Description=An image of Lala Hanumant Sahai- an Indian revolutionary published in the book Bharatiya Krantikari Andolan Ka Itihas writen by Manmath Nath Gupta (This image has also been created by the User: Krantmlverma himself through his own camera) |Source=Bharatiya Krantikari Andolan Ka Itihas by Manmath Nath Gupta. It's first edition was published in India during Indian indepedence movement which was proscribed by British Raj in 1939. |Date=08-10-2011 (when this file was uploaded by me)}}
- Further I have also changed its licence permission as PD-India.
- Regards-Krantmlverma (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - assuming good faith regarding the revised sourcing etc, this remains a derivative work because of the ridiculous additional border etc. NB: user has now been indef blocked at en-WP on competence grounds. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete low quality image, dubious sources, and an impressively ridiculous border. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Freidrehende Theoriefindung. Es gibt keinerlei Unterlagen, welche die Realität eines solchen Projektes belegen könnten. Alle Fundstellen zu dem Thema sind in höchstem Maße unseriös und jeder malt sich das angebliche Dings wie es ihm beliebt. Weissbier (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep + rename. Das ist nur ein Bild und keine Theoriefindung. Oder was für eine Theorie lässt sich in diesem Bild sehen? Ich sehe nur eine schematische Zeichnung ohne irgendwelche Angaben. --Stefan79 ch (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep + rename, see Category:80 cm K gun (Krupp) @ WB Deine LAs sind der "Bringer" - amüsementmässig versteht sich. --Gruß Tom (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep + rename. Danke fürs Zwerchfelltraining (ROTFL). LG --MittlererWeg (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Das ist nur ein Eisenbahngeschütz, welches auf Gleisketten gestellt wurde. Das als vermeintlich vorbildgetreues Abbild eines Panzers (wenn auch in dem Fall ein Papiertiger) darzustellen geht nicht. Ich kann nicht einfach technische Zeichnungen ohne reales Vorbild anfertigen und hinterher behaupten, es hätte eben ein Vorbild. -- Knergy (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wenn ich Lust habe kann ich eine technische Zeichnung von einer Kartoffelmelkmaschine anfertigen. Ob es dann in einen Artikel gehört ist eine andere Frage, die ja in der Artikel-LD diskutiert wird. Was hat das mit dem Bild zu tun? Dies ist einfach ein kleiner Nebenkriegsschauplatz ohne tieferen Sinn. --Stefan79 ch (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Diese Zeichnung ist Theoriefindung. Es gibt keine reale Grundlage, die Gestaltung ist Spekulation. English: This file is nominated for deletion, as we suggest, that it just a speculative description of tank concept. There are no sources, that could verify this image. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- David Porter: Hitler's Secret Weapons 1933-1945. Amber Books, London 2010, ISBN 978-1-906626-74-7, S. 70-73.
Keep scope and used on other wikis--Sanandros (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep there exist plans for this monster --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Keep? FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
no permission from Moto Club Roma 217.186.17.254 06:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the uploader Decio Mure and my opinion is yes, I agree to deletion, please delete the file. Thank you.
Greetings --Decio Mure (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no FoP in Italy and the image is copied here. Dega180 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we know...but this is clearly a rendering and not a photo, just enlarge the picture... --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes this is a rendering but it is a rendering copied from the official project protected by copyright.--Dega180 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1) The link that you put is from a well-known skyscraper amateur website and not an official renedring. In all likelihood the uploader is the author himself. And you do not have any evidence about who copied who. 2) In every case, the reason for deleting indicated by you is technically wrong. So, you should delete this request and start a new one on different grounds since this is neither a real picture nor a violation of a no-Fop law. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is copyied by here (see also [2]) because in the commons photo the bottom part (whith copyright mark) has been cut. This photo is copyed from another and is in a copyright violation.--Dega180 (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will write to the author and ask for permit, I'm sure that he will agree. Conte di Cavour
- 1) The link that you put is from a well-known skyscraper amateur website and not an official renedring. In all likelihood the uploader is the author himself. And you do not have any evidence about who copied who. 2) In every case, the reason for deleting indicated by you is technically wrong. So, you should delete this request and start a new one on different grounds since this is neither a real picture nor a violation of a no-Fop law. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
In EXIF-data it sais: "LRTimelapse 3.2.1 - licensed to Alessandro Muiesan, 20148 - Private License, no commercial use allowed!". Also {{NoFoP-Italy}} Also see previously DR(s): 1. Josve05a (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Info Uploaded by Obliot (talk · contributions · Statistics) on 25.12.2013 and previously published via "Alessandro"'s Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/"obliot"/ (which would explain the exif-credit "Alessandro Muiesan") = https://www.flickr.com/photos/obliot/10826401273 (12.11.2013, all rights reserved by " Alessandro", identical exif). Most of the other uploads (if not all) by @Obliot: were previously uploaded as "all rights reserved" on Flickr. Under hard terms, permission and/or further clarification needed. Alternatively: COM:GOODFAITH assuming that user "Obliot" is the same Flickr user... or? Gunnex (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: We need more evidence of permission and FOP is also a concern but you can argue that the copyrighted elements are DM. Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This image was created in Italy in 1986. While it's PD in Italy it can't be considered PD in the USA thus is uneligible for Commons SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the use of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is sufficient so that the image {{PD-Italy}} is loaded on commons. Alternatively you could use {{PD-URAA-Simul}} --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you've misunderstood the templates. Not-PD-US-URAA means that a file is not PD in the USA because on 1st January 1996 it was still copyrighted in its country of origin (Italy, in this case). This file was created in Italy in 1986 thus IT IS NOT in PD in the USA. Files in PD in Italy are also PD in the USA if they were not copyrighted before 1st Jan 1996, thus in case of photos, not artistic images created until 1976 (and published no later than 1978). Thus this file is uneligible for Commons. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Status uncertain. It can't be sure that the pic (PD in Italy) has been produced and published before 1976 thus is not clear if it can be considered PD in the USA too SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep For this table the image is still OK (it's not important before 1976 or not, maybe yes, but it's not decisive). Like you on 11 January 2012, I'm for keep it. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment as i said, there is no evidence that the image has been produced before 1976 and/or published before 1978. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Attention, I said that from 1 January 1978 to 28 February 1989, if the image was "Published without copyright notice" is too "public domain in USA", for this Alignment with PD-US-URAA. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- as i said, there is no evidence that the image has been produced before 1976. You should be reading all of what I write. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Attention, I said that from 1 January 1978 to 28 February 1989, if the image was "Published without copyright notice" is too "public domain in USA", for this Alignment with PD-US-URAA. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free content (painting). Armbrust (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- At least link me the painting :/ --0ne, Two, Three (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This picture is a public area? Vitor Mazuco Msg 12:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- yeah, it's the Dante station of the Naples subway --0ne, Two, Three (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I flickrpassed it to get it out of the flickr needing human category...but Italy doesn't have FOP for modern 3D art. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Contains the copyrighted Wimbledon logo; furthermore, the results may be protected by database rights. 84.61.149.75 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Logo is de minimis. As for the database rights, I have to say I don't know about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree that logo is de minimis. No evidence has been adduced for the 'database rights', whatever they may be. Image adds to the article in a positive way, and should be retained.Fortnum (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- That the image adds to the article is irrelevant, the issue is copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think he just meant that it was in scope, so that the file should be kept if it appeared that there was no copyright problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- That the image adds to the article is irrelevant, the issue is copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The (de minimis) use of the logo should be considered fair use under copyright law, and I doubt it's infringing under trademark law (which I'm surprised hasn't been brought up yet). I also say "keep". --108.75.59.67 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: As a sports database expert, I can say that this does not constitute a database which would attract copyright under any country's laws. In the absence of a claim or any sensible precedent to contradict this, I vote that the Commons should keep this facsimile of an historically important scoresheet Patrourke (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No explanation as to why the uploader would be the copyright holder of this photo taken by an unnamed photographer. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Karol Borysowicz was my godfather and a partner of my grand father Roman Żurowski. I received this picture from his grandson Jacek Jagielski, who gave it to me to be used in the wikimedia entry I have written on Karol Borysowicz. Jacek Jagielski and his mother Danuta Jagielska (age 92) are the closest living relatives of Karol Borysowicz. If needed I can provide you with a written statement by Mr. Jacek Jagielski, that he is the owner of these pictures and grants these to wiki media commons. Plaese let me know where I can find the appropriate form.
Roman Kurowski (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Owning a copy of a photo does not mean that one is the copyright holder of the photo. Unless it can be shown that the copyright has expired, the copyright belongs to the photographer or the photographer's heirs. The standard permission form can be found at Commons:Email templates, but only the copyright holder can issue a valid permission. Also, a permission limited to Wikimedia Commons is not sufficient for Commons to keep an image; we only host content that can be used freely by anyone for any purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I will provide you with the appropriate license document by Monday June 25, 2012. Roman Kurowski (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Permission from the license holder (Edward Renau in Piaseczno) was submitted on Saturday June 23, 2012 to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org.
Roman Kurowski 23.06 (2 dni temu)
do Zezwolenia Szanowny OTRS,
Odszukałem atelie fotograficzne w którym było robione zdjęcie Karola Borysowicza. Nie było to aż tak skomplikowane. Piaseczno było małym miasteczkiem w latach 1960-tych i ojciec Edwarda Renau był chyba jedynym czynnym fotografem z pracownią.
W załączeniu jego zgoda na opublikowanie zdjęcia Karola Borysowicza w wikipedii.
Pozdrawiam,
Roman Kurowski Roman Kurowski (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Polski: (missing text)Potwierdzam, że na OTRS przyszedł skan zgody na CC-BY-SA 3.0 od właściciela atelier "Foto-Renau", w którym to zdjęcie wykonano i sprawa jest 100% czysta od strony majątkowych praw autorskich. Polimerek (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- English: (missing text)Indeed, the proper agreement from copyright owner of the picture (an owner of the photo-atelier) has been sent to OTRS, so the picture is clean. Polimerek (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did the copyright holder transfer the copyright to the uploader, or did they simply approve publication under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? If it's the latter, you should remove the {{Self}} wrapper from the license. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It was uploaded in 2004, which is a while ago; OTRS didn't exist back then, with the comment "by permission of the CNN International Public Relations department". Meta-Wiki has even a special template for this (m:Template:GFDL-presumed), but on Commons it's nominated for deletion, {{GFDL-presumed}}? Trijnsteltalk 09:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work. Unknown author. Anatoliy (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Flag of Ljubljana
[edit]The photos contain a copyrighted version of the coat of arms of Ljubljana. See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities.
- File:Flag of Ljubljana (2).jpg
- File:Flag of Ljubljana (3).jpg
- File:Flag of Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Flaga Ljubljany.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 07:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have read whole discussion mentioned above, but it still looks strange for me. There are millions logos at Commons that are captured in the photos. Logos are copyrighted, but photos containing them rather not. I couldn't find any English version of Slovenian copyright law, but is it so different from any other country's? Is there any chance to ask a Slovenian user that is a lawyer? ARvєδuι + 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- This reasoning that "logos are copyrighted, but photos containing them rather not" is completely unfounded. These photos are reproductions of 2D works. For the publication of reproductions of works, a permission by the copyright holder is needed. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Logos might be copyrighted, but the photos of the waving flags are not copies of the logo itself. Read also de minimis rule. Keep
Julo (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what does the 'de minimis' rule have to do here. The coat-of-arms is the central and indispensable element of the flag. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep
To me the situation of displaying a public entity's, what a city or a country is, coat-of-arm (or flag) is very different from using a reproduction of somebody else's work of art/statue/piece of architecture etc for commercial purposes. Imagine a thought experiment. Imagine a greedy salesman is trying to sell his product by attaching to the product a reproduction of the Ljubljana coat-of-arms (or flag). Isn't the poor greedy man only helping promote the city's public identity in the world by doing so? It is not the same as somebody selling a reproduction of somebody else's work of art and thus depriving the latter for income he would have had if he had been selling the reproduction of his art himself. An identity of a public entity, such as a city, just can't be sold - it can only be promoted imho. DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- The argument “The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.” is specifically rejected by COM:PRP. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
image identique Cafedelyon 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless you identify which this is identical to. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- the other one is File:Claude Monet. Le Havre.jpg, and I have ask this one in speedy for {{duplicate}}. ----MGuf (d) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 16:10, 18 August 2012 by Denniss, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of Mussolinispas
[edit]Unfortunately it has now become apparent that Mussolinispas (talk · contribs) has lied about his identity and lied to users who have reviewed his uploads (example; later confession). While the user has provided a short list of images that he admits are copyright violations, and some other obvious cases have already been deleted, given these events I think it is fair to conclude that none of the photographs uploaded as "own work" under this account can be trusted, so I am nominating them all for deletion, as listed below:
- File:ChandbaghDebateDS75.jpg
- File:DoonSchoolatNight.jpg
- File:DS-75 Music concert.jpg
- File:DS-75 orchestra.jpg
- File:H-HouseinDoonwith ShiwlaiksRangebehind.jpg
- File:TheChandbaghDebateDS-75.jpg
- File:TheDoonSchoolSwimmingPool.jpg
- File:DoonSchool.jpg
- File:KhouseHhouseDoonSchool.jpg
- File:Doon School - TataHouse.jpg
- File:PanoramaDoonSchool.jpg
- File:Panorama of The Doon School's Main Field.jpg
- File:Cricket Pavilion, The Doon School.jpg
- File:The Rose Bowl, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Doon School.jpg
- File:Rose Bowl at night, The Doon School.jpg
- File:Kodály Quartet at The Doon School, India.jpg
- File:Kodály Quartet performing in Rose Bowl, The Doon School.jpg
- File:Kodály Quartet in The Doon School ,Dehradun.jpg
- File:Kodály Quartet, Rose Bowl in The Doon School.jpg
- File:Main Building porch-Doon School.jpg
It should also be noted that all these photos are of somewhat low resolution and have no camera metadata. This nomination issues no prejudice against future uploads by Mussolinispas, although they may be subject to additional scrutiny or only kept under certain circumstances e.g. with the presence of camera metadata.
Furthermore, I am also nominating:
There are no apparent copyright issues with the poster as it is a derivative work of public domain material, but it appears to fall foul of COM:SCOPE as a made-up poster with no clear educational purpose. CT Cooper · talk 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree - I have already confessed about the photographs I did not take. While the photographs mentioned above are taken from my son's facebook page. And he knows that I've uploaded his photos on Wikipedia. Hence, I request you to remove the deletion templates otherwise my job will be doubled as I'll have to upload them once again. Thanks!--Mussolinispas (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, which ones are from Facebook? The ones you listed earlier or the ones listed above. If it is only the earlier ones which are from Facebook, then where these other photos from exactly? A clear explanation would be appreciated. Re-uploading of images deleted on copyright grounds is generally not permitted, but in this case, I wouldn't object (although I can't speak for Commons' administrators) if it involved the uploading of images with i) full camera metadata and ii) full resolution, in order to demonstrate they are not copyright violations. Images on Commons should be of the highest resolution available anyway.
- In any case, the main problem here is that by not telling the truth, you have introduced significant doubt on if your uploads are free, and the precautionary principle mandates that such uploads be deleted. This leaves me and others in a difficult position. CT Cooper · talk 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to know why File:PanoramaDoonSchool.jpg is watermarked? CT Cooper · talk 12:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
CoA files from speedy-deletion. Reason was: Not 70 years PMA, see below
RE rillke questions? 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Changing from {{copyvio|Tous droits réservés - Arnaud BUNEL - 1997-2011}} because I don't agree. They all seem to be from before 1500 so the copyright would have expired. Arnaud Bunel's contribution is probably below the threshold of originality.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I do not agree that these files are copyright violations. They are logos of the United States and look sufficiently simple, cf. examples at COM:TOO#United States. However, some can probably be deleted as duplicates.
Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Dupes deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These were originally speedy-nommed because the Flickr license is NC. These are by a NASA employee, so the question is whether or not this negates or trumps the NC on Flickr.
INeverCry 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I uploaded these files on the basis that work by NASA is normally in the public domain and allowed here on Wikimedia. There is nothing to suggest that astronaut Don Pettit shot these pictures for private reasons using his own personal camera. If he intended them to be private holiday snaps he could have created a personal website and posted them there with copyright restrictions. In fact, I doubt his terms of employment at NASA would allow him to make pictures private that were taken from a NASA space station using NASA camera equipment. The pictures were posted at a NASA controlled website, not at Pettit's own website. They have all been assigned official NASA photo identifications (e.g. JSC2012-E-051505, JSC2012-E-051506, and JSC2012-E-051507) and some have been posted at NASA's main website – NASA.gov – where the usual freedom of use applies (picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA's main website. Second picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA. Third picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA). I assume the employee at NASA who created the NASA Flickr account may not have known that he was setting a licence parameter that restricted image usage more than at NASA's main website. If the same pictures at NASA.gov cannot be used from NASA's Flickr account, that is inconsistent and makes no sense. O'Dea (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus to kept. Érico Wouters msg 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Speedy nommed as copyvios by User:Smial, but may be covered by FoP. Discussion seems like a better idea than speedy deletion.
INeverCry 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted the interior kept exterior as FOP. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Original speedy rationale: Unfortunately, this artwork by Miquel Barceló is under copyright--User:LPLT (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My pictures are the 4 first ones listed above. I would however demand that the same deletion rules apply to the following files, which don't even mention the artist's name. The US Mission should not be above rules that apply to others.
Thank you for your patience and your understanding --BiiJii (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
--BiiJii (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio logos by User:Ostiamare. Most of these look too simple to be copyrighted, but I'd like more opinions.
INeverCry 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Previously tagged as Copyvio by Ellin Beltz: © 2008–2015 Astronomical Institute of the Charles University, Josef Ďurech, Vojtěch Sidorin
Alan (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: CC BY 4.0. Alan (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by PlanespotterA320 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cropping out artistic parts of postal covers and stamps is strictly prohibited by PD-RU-exempt (read the footnotes about cropping). These artistic renderings by themselves are protected by copyright until expiration, and none are old enough to have expired copyright yet. Until such time, the artists of these works, like Pyotr Bendel and Anatoly Kalashnikov, retain the rights to these works.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These three stamps were sent to copyvio, but I think they need to be discussed, because the argument presented is a little bit above the quick decision needed for CopyVio.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files were initially tagged by Matthias Winkelmann as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5}}{{SD|reason=No information is given regarding consent, and the tone of the description and the inclusion of "ex-girlfriend" in the filename raise the possibility of this being intentional harassment. Plus, it's pornographic and low-quality. User has about 80+ similar photos. The uploader (@Ulflarsen: ) asserts the following: "I put this picture up for deletion, to stop a speedy deletion. The picture is posted with the full consent of my ex-girlfriend, she know of it and is still doing amateur pornograpy with me now and then. If this picture (and my 90+ similar pictures) shall be deleted, then there are some tens of thousands of others that also should be removed, and Wikimedians would have to ask what other content that may be problematic, perhaps pictures of war?“
FredWalsh (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary issue of this DR seems to be consent of the other partners, rather than scope or other topical reasons. I have kept those files for which OTRS consent has been received, and deleted one for which it cannot be obtained. If there has legitmate scope or other topical concerns, they can be addressed in a separate DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by Yinweiaiqing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: videos of performances captured by audience. missing permission from performers. They've sat in CAT:COPYVIO for a few days; converting to DR.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. --Minoraxtalk 04:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Appear to be from 1910s/1020s-era, likely a PD original (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghidul Constantei si Tekirghiol.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:CityStudyCasinoArchive.jpg for evience of this timeframe and porential original being PD).
DMacks (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. While the text of the name list is not eligible for copyright, the photograph of the list probably is (barely). --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations[edit]Converting these to DR since they've sat in the copyvio queue for a while. Gleb Leo tagged these as copyvio as apparently containing work by author not covered under the existing license template.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination, no objection nor counterargument presented. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploads by User:Myrrine[edit]Source site: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." According to the uploader, he/she has the permission to upload the files under the provided license. User_talk:Myrrine#Non-commercial_use_is_not_allowed_on_Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Polarlys (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6Yj6E84TNxg/TXZQeeoOOKI/AAAAAAAAHns/ElJmAH9QLik/s1600/PanoPortaNuovaNew.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){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}
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]Speedy tagged by IP user. Wait: "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." is arguably a free license (although it does not expressly permit derivative works), and I will reach out to the named contact for clarification and to see if consent can be sent to COM:VRT.
- File:Rudolph Giuliani booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Scott Hall booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:David Shafer booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:John Eastman booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Sidney Powell booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Mark Meadows booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Ray Smith booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Kenneth Chesebro booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Jenna Ellis booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Cathleen Latham booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Floyd Harrison booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that File:Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png should be restored if VRT permission is granted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- These should be deleted, it doesn't seem like I'm making progress with the contact person, unfortunately. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Mug Shot.webp. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]No permission and no evidence of a free license.
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4784-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231357-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID5011-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231466-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231077-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231370-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID11744-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231354-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4819-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID9495-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231369-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231102-av.jpg
Yann (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)