Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Logo is a trademark and appears to be licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (not acceptable on Commons), see bottom of mongodb.org Hello71 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, NC licenses not allowed on Commons; no indication has been released under acceptable license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Violates the copyright of Disney. ALE! ¿…? 10:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted I'd rather say violates the copyright of A. A. Milne, but either way, clearly derivative work -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Self-promotional. Trivialist (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclear source - (i.e. Vintage Magazine), so impossible for anyone to verify whether the photographer is really unknown - and as it is a civil aircraft in civil markings the photographer is unlikely to be a member of the Luftwaffe. Even if the photographer is unknown, however, as the photo was taken in 1938 or 39, it unclear how it is also pd in the US as demanded by the URAA.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Nigel Ish (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
unnötige weiterleitung Webmaster LGW (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The unnecesary redirection after renaming should be deleted through {{Speedy}}. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of: File:Americo-Independency_(high).jpg Raeky (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept this one (in use on several pages) and deleted the other (replaced on one page). --Tryphon (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept Not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted work, violation of COM:FAIR Écrivain (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Copyright violation, better to use {{Copyvio}} for obvious cases :).—Bill william comptonTalk 15:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks :) Écrivain (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown status. Art-top (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Neither I nor Yasemin Alptekin wants this picture to remain here. 20 August 2007 User:Bahar101
- Could you clarify: Why should this be deleted? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept See Commons:Ownership of pages and files. --GeorgHH • talk 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This image was uploaded in 2006 for usage in an article about the user's mother on English Wikipedia - which was subsequently deleted for notability reasons. Although this image was released in the public domain, it was an honest mistake. This file is out of scope, so lets not be a-holes by holding on to this. –Krinkletalk 14:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted –Krinkletalk 14:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
the picture used for it might have been created after 1911 --Flominator (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Sreejithk2000 9:46, 17 July 2012
Not "own work" - scanned image with unknown status. Art-top (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution duplicate which is unused at the time of deletion. AFBorchert (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
es privado y no me di cuenta que al subirlo podria herir sensibilidades ajenas Edusil (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – uploader's request.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request by the uploader, seems also to be out of scope. AFBorchert (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This advertisement can't be considered as an original artwork. Pymouss Let’s talk - 14:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A far better version has been recently uploaded: File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Unlike the one being nominated for deletion, the other version has the full painting despicted and its correct colors. Lecen (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution duplicate which is unused at the time of deletion. AFBorchert (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This image and all other uploads by User:Abiavikdarda. Reason: Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Out of the project scope.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: this image (of substandard quality) cannot used for educational purposes. By now it is not used on any Wikimedia projects High Contrast (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused, low quality, single upload from user, not identified location/event. Funfood ␌ 23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This photograph was cleary not taken in 1870: by the cars on the center, we can say it was the '80s or '90s... So, the license template is false and the picture should be deleted. Kleiner (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
many logos (some not text only) without permission Art-top (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Gambia is 50pma. This was published in 1965 by two known authors; no way it's free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uganda's copyright length isn't known, but the author of this work died in 2012. If Uganda is anything like countries around it (50+pma), this work is copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tunisia is 50pma; this work was created in 1987; performed even by the US Navy Band, it is a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Composed by Mohamed Fawzi; Algeria is 50pma. Not free in Algeria until 2017. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Composed by Thomas Sankara; Burkina Faso is 70 pma. Unfree until 2058. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Composed by Dušan Šestić; Bosnia is 70pma. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This was composed in 2008. Serbia and presumably Kosovo are 70 pma. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution promo photo without original exif. Art-top (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No reason to believe it is CC0 (http://www.tzbank.com/index.jsp is copyrighted, do not see anything special about the logo). I think it is above the threshold of originality (not sure). May be worth moving to Wikipedia if possible, as it is in use there. Zolo (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader is surely not the author of the image. ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not the work of the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wenn der Urheber unbekannt ist, woraus ergibt sich dann, dass er jedem erlaubt, sein Werk für jeglichen Zweck zu nutzen? Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
doubt that this is self made by uploader Teemeah (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Official fraternity logo, without evidence of free license or PD status GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This was released after 1989, so "never copyrighted" is not a valid reason for PD. The FAL on it is also suspect. This may be below the threshold for copyright, however. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is a pdf of a press release that was widely released to the press for a film that was released that year. Doug Trumbull sent it to me in 1990 with the idea that I (and others) could disseminate it. There is no reason to delete it. I put it out here because the film was released as a virtual reality experience, so there could be no titles. Also, the IMDB has been repeatedly vandalized. Once I posted the official titles here, IMDB adopted them, and has kept the IMDB entries correct.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image from official site [2] Sasha Krotov (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope due to its extremely bad image quality. As such this "image" is not useable for educational purposes High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Judging the folding marks you can see horizontally half way the image, this is a reproduction of a photograph on paper. Source of it unclear, hence copyright status unclear. Lymantria (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. LGA talkedits 02:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- If so, PD-old-70 applies. This is pre-WWII, with corporate authorship. This is already explained on the file's page. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Need to provide proof of that claim of PD, copyright is 70 years after the death of the author so need to show that the author died before 1943. LGA talkedits 21:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat: corporate authorship. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Corporate authorship does not apply in UK law, it would have been created by someone and ownership and copyright would last for 70 years after that persons death. LGA talkedits 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's not my understanding. Citation? Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Corporate authorship does not apply in UK law, it would have been created by someone and ownership and copyright would last for 70 years after that persons death. LGA talkedits 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat: corporate authorship. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Need to provide proof of that claim of PD, copyright is 70 years after the death of the author so need to show that the author died before 1943. LGA talkedits 21:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per my arguments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walsall wall advertisement.jpg. USA law requires that it is pre-1926. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP in UK not applicable to murals or posters -FASTILY 22:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very likely flickr washing - the flickr user who put this image under a free CC-license is surely not the copyright holder of this image nor has he/she a sufficiently reaching permission for a free use High Contrast (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Obviously copied and cropped from Google Maps or Google Earth. PCock (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked, no exif, nothing suggests that it is the uploader's own work. Zolo (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Alice Soares died 2005. Common Good (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Historically anachronistic. Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No source Fry1989 eh? 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photographer of this 1943 photo can't be dead since 1941, which would be required to put it legitimately under a PD-old license. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The uploader doesn´t look as the author Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
My logo for the contest is no longer required. Jacksimon67 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
gibt's für die abgebildeten Photos auch eine Freigabe? Isderion (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own by uploader: low resolution, no EXIF. A.Savin 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately has to be deleted as it is a post-1970 sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
they are not Kazakhs and Kazakh national dress. please delete. Bolatbek (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work with no evidence of permission from Eva Howitzer. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work with no evidence of permission from Eva Howitzer. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative work with no evidence of permission from Eva Howitzer. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture - usage on id.wiktionary is a bot-error. Single upload from user. Funfood ␌ 23:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Smaller copy of File:Heinrich Bollandt - Erdmann August, Crown Prince of Brandenburg-Bayreuth - WGA02373.jpg Shakko (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No educational value.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
BB!?! Take a look at all his other ones! Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_001.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![141 File:"No fish to be taken away" - in Polish and Russian^ - geograph.org.uk - 1098175.jpg](#File:"No_fish_to_be_taken_away"_-_in_Polish_and_Russian^_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1098175.jpg){kind=link}
.svg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of PD, 1912 is recent enough to be quite easily within 70y pma. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep It's a postcard with a picture of Montpelier, Vermont. I seriously doubt it was first published outside the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept. US printed postcard; {{PD-1923}}; 70y pma not relevant to copyright status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - six photos taken with 3 different cameras. Some of them in low resolution.
- File:Negativ und Positivabdruck eines Babybauches.jpg
- File:Gestalteter Babybauchabdruck nach Wunsch.jpg
- File:Schwangere mit Babybauch Gipsabdruck.jpg
- File:Rohling einer Bauchmaske.JPG
- File:Abformung eines Babybauches.jpg
Art-top (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arquitecturamoderna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Rough collages, based on images with unknown status. Doubtful authorship. Doubtful relevance to the project.
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 7.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 5.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 4.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 3.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 2.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Manhattan Arch 1.jpg
Art-top (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Todas estas imágenes son propiedad intelectual de Arquitectura Moderna, bien por ser fotomontajes sobre fotografías de nuestra propiedad,o ser dibujos o pinturas a aerografo. Su uso ha sido cedido para ello por Adolfo Morán, Si se fijan bien, todas son producto nuestro. Si lo desean pueden comprobar la aceptación para su uso y libre difusión publica. Pueden ustedes consultar si lo desean al propio Adolfo Morán: email: adolfomoranortega@gmail.com
Se ha cedido su uso a Wikipedia y no deben ser borradas Muchas gracias
All these images are copyright of Modern Architecture, it are photomontages on pics of our property, or as drawings or paintings to airbrush. If you look carefully, they are all of our products. Arquitectura Moderna Has given way to use Wikipedia and should not be deleted thank you very much. if you want you can check acceptance for public use and to share at Adolfo Moran: email: adolfomoranortega@gmail.com
Arquitectura Moderna
Adolfo Morán: mail to : adolfomoranortega@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arquitecturamoderna (talk • contribs)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arquitecturamoderna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small /inconsistentresolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Bilbao audit skyscrappers Adolfo Moran.jpg
- File:Housing Madrid Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Social Club2 El Pichon Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Social Club El Pichon Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Penas House Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:1-TORREJON-MEJOR.jpg
- File:Lake Town4 Punta del Este Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Lake Town3 Punta del Este Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Lake Town2 Punta del Este Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Lake Town1 Punta del Este Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Arch in Manhattan3 Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Arch in Manhattan2 Adolfo Moran architect.jpg
- File:Arch in Manhattan1 Adolfo Moran.jpg
- File:Paseo Castellana Arch Adolfo Moran.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran 3.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran 2.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 3.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 4.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 6.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 5.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 2.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Ibiza 1.jpg
- File:Fernando Higueras La Macarrona House in Somosaguas .jpg
- File:Casa en Somosaguas Fernado Higueras.jpg
- File:Adolfo MoranForeigners Brigade-Interior.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 10.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 9.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 2.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Control Building.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Church 1.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Social Club 4.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Social Club 2.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Social Club 3.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Castilla y Leon Palace of President.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 13.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 6.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 5.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 4.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Foreigners Brigade 3.jpg
- File:Adolfo Moran Brigada Extranjeria 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
We have seen that have posted request for deletion of images provided by us, some more than five years ago, for lack of "EXIF". It is pics of architecture and we have no exactly idea what is the EXIF. As we read it seems that is a photo of the inside information and it is changed whe use photoshop. All have been taken by us and most of them have been reduced by us its size and converted to jpg using photoshop (the origniales had about 2.5 Mb each). Some has information the camera that had been taken (example: File:Fernando Higueras La Macarrona House in Somosaguas .jpg ) . We do not know what to do. If you can tell us how we should act to add EXIF. Thank you very much. Arquitecturamoderna
Hola. Hemos visto que han colgado request for deletion de imágenes cedidas por nosotros -algunas hace mas de 5 años- por falta de "EXIF". No tenemos ni idea de qué es el EXIF. POr lo que hemos podido leer parece que es una información interna de las fotografias. Todas han sido tomadas por nosotros y han sido disminuido su tamaño y convertidas en jpg utilizando photoshop (las origniales tenías alrededor de 2,5 Mb cada una) algunas ponía la camara con la que se habían tomado, pero esa información ha desaparecido de commons. No sabemos qué tenemos que hacer. Si le es posible díganos cómo debemos actuar para añadir el EXIF. Muchas gracias. Arquitecturamoderna
Deleted Subanlas nuevamente sin retocar para no eliminar los EXIF Ezarateesteban 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Estimado Ezarate, Eugene Zeleko nos dijo que el request no era por EXIF sino por poca definición, pero si subimos esas fotos sin retocar, cada una ocupa del orden de 2,5 Mb por lo que cargarlas sera muy complicado. La mayoría llevaban muchos años en commons y como en casi todas las paginas de wikipedia, eran del orden de 500 u 800 pixels. ¿No hay posibilidad de reponerlas como estaban? Grupo: Arquitectura Moderna Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Files uploaded by Santosh3397 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship - low resolution photos without original exif. Some of them are already marked as copyvio.
- File:Main roads.jpg
- File:Roads in city.jpg
- File:Hawk fp.jpg
- File:Tomb in bidar.jpg
- File:Bustand.jpg
- File:Fighter plane.jpg
- File:Surya kiran fp.jpg
- File:Veterinary University.jpg
- File:Barid shahi Garden.jpg
- File:Gurunank.jpg
- File:Hawk fighter plane.jpg
- File:Govt medical college.jpg
- File:Inside view of fort.jpg
- File:Resort at vilaspur.jpg
- File:Fort external view.jpg
- File:Ashtur tomb.jpg
- File:Surya kiran.jpg
- File:Wild life.jpg
Art-top (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AzabacheSoy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship - low resolution photos without original exif.
- File:Hincha cuerva 2012.jpg
- File:Copando el mundialista.jpg
- File:Central Norte fanas.jpg
- File:D75c20c302237575f9d2c11e424fbff9o.jpg
- File:Ascenso Cuervo.jpg
- File:Dr. Luís Guemes.jpg
Art-top (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution photo without original exif.
Art-top (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, forgot that one. --Martin H. (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alfalier gomez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:طارق عبد الرازق.jpg
- File:محمد سيد صابر.jpg
- File:عماد عبد الحليم إسماعيل.jpg
- File:كارلوس لوزانو أنجل.jpg
- File:إبراهيم شاهين.jpg
- File:انشراح موسى.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deportivo Boca Mono (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship - low resolution photos without exif or taken with different cameras, promo images and logo without permission.
- File:Mono Laji.jpg
- File:Primer equipo experimental.jpg
- File:Plantel 2012.jpg
- File:Plantel de Honor.jpg
- File:Camisetasb.jpg
- File:CamisetasA.jpg
- File:Tattoso Boca MonoCAL.jpg
Art-top (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrey.maz (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt that these unused logos are useful for the project. It seems, the organization has no encyclopedic value.
- File:Nopcommerce logo 5.gif
- File:Nopcommerce logo 4.gif
- File:Nopcommerce logo 3.png
- File:Nopcommerce logo 2.png
- File:Nopcommerce logo 1.png
Art-top (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Budelmütze (talk · contribs)
[edit]Diese Fotos sind vor weniger als 70 Jahren veröffentlicht worden. Die Freigabe unter {{Cc-by-3.0-de}} ist nicht dokumentiert.
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Budelmütze (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are all German photos dated from the 1920s to the 1950s. They are all claimed to be in the PD or "free use" or "Anonymous-EU" or such, but no authors are named. Images from those dates are not old enough to assume that they must be in the PD, since the authors easily could have lived beyond 1947 (quite obviously so for images from the 1950s). So the files should be deleted per the precautionary principle. And no, you cannot keep them with the Anonymous-EU tag. That tag isn't applicable to German works, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp).
- File:"Gelbe Schule" am Rathausplatz in Hamburg-Harburg (Zerstörung 1944).jpg
- File:Tympanon-Eingang der "Gelben Schule" in Hamburg-Harburg vor 1944.jpg
- File:Crusader Club in Hamburg 1945.jpg
- File:Harburger Nissenhütten in Hamburg-Harburg 1950.jpg
- File:Willi Stanke 1942.jpg
- File:Hermann Frieb 1939.jpg
- File:Wessel Freiherr Freytag von Loringhoven 1942.jpg
- File:Max Fleischmann 1920.jpg
- File:Reinhold Frank 1940.jpg
- File:Felix Fechenbach 1921.jpg
- File:Otto Engert 1935.jpg
- File:Karl Heinz Engelhorn 1940.jpg
- File:Georg Elser 1938.jpg
- File:Fritz Elsas 1931.jpg
- File:Horst von Einsiedel 1932.jpg
- File:Max Ulrich Graf von Drechsel 1940.jpg
- File:Heinrich Graf zu Dohna-Schlobitten 1932.jpg
- File:Justus Delbrück 1940.jpg
- File:Franz Dahlem 1945.jpg
- File:Marianne Cohn 1942.jpg
- File:Eva-Maria Buch 1940.jpg
- File:Gustav Bruhn 1939.jpg
- File:Paul Gerhard Braune 1940.jpg
- File:Leo Borchard 1939.jpg
- File:Klaus Bonhoeffer 1939.jpg
- File:Walter Bohne 1930.jpg
- File:Robert Bernadis 1942.jpg
- File:Hilde Ephraim 1935.jpg
- File:Alfred Bergmann 1936.jpg
- File:Wilhelm Beuttel 1940.jpg
- File:Herbert Baum 1936.jpg
- File:Hans Leipelt 1942.jpg
- File:Cora Berliner 1933.jpg
- File:Bernhard Bästlein 1939.jpg
- File:Hans Adlhoch 1925.jpg
- File:Marianne Baum 1940.jpg
- File:Reinhold Meyer 1942.jpg
- File:Ottilie Pohl 1930.jpg
- File:Heinz Kucharski, um 1939.jpg
- File:Katharina Leipelt 1920.jpg
- File:Margarethe Mrosek.jpg
- File:Friedrich Rudolf Geussenhainer 1927.jpg
- File:Tempo-Werk Harburg, Anfang der 1940er Jahre.jpg
- File:Tempo-Werk, Harburg-Hausbruch, Am Radeland 125.jpg
- File:Feuerwache Harburg von 1926.jpg
- File:Harburger Rathaus 1944.jpg
- File:Wilhelmsburger Norderelbbrücke.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 16:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Viel Spaß beim Löschen !!! Budelmütze
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution professional photos without original exif.
- File:JulioD.jpg - watermarked
- File:SASA.jpg
- File:Grana mario.jpg
- File:Ganzo.jpg
- File:Flaco 1.jpg
- File:Jonathan Fabbro.JPG
- File:Freddy Bareiro.jpg
Art-top (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution photos without original exif, logos without permission, scheme in low resolution.
- File:Eder luis VASCO DA GAMa.jpg
- File:Dede-comemora-gol-durante-a-vitoria-sobre-o-universitario-per-em-sao-januario.jpg
- File:Fernando prass1.jpg
- File:Felipe Vasco 300x300.jpg
- File:Fagner lat direito.jpg
- File:El Chori Alejandro Domínguez.jpg
- File:Nueva Chicago buenos aires.gif
- File:Localização da Barra Brava GDA em São Januário.PNG
- File:Murgas da LBDP do C. N. de F..jpg
- File:Bombos.jpg
- File:1257271246610 f.jpg
- File:MURGAS do GDA.jpg
- File:Faixa-classicos-em-sj-7151.jpg
- File:Nova logo gda.jpg
- File:Logo - GDA Loucos da Sada 3.png
Art-top (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution promo professional photos without original exif.
- File:Jose Aldo.jpg
- File:Benson Henderson.jpg
- File:Anderson The Spider Silva.jpg
- File:Jon Joness.jpg
- File:Jon Jones.png
- File:Jon Jones.jpg
- File:Quinton jackson espy awards.jpg
Art-top (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copy violations deleted and one free file kept Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- that applies to the other uploads of that user (Special:ListFiles/Ediaza) as well. All the real photos/collages should be deleted unless sufficient information about them is provided. About the rest I am not sure, some could be pd (maps, e.g.) but it seems that they are just bad copies (for example why jpg and not svg?). --Isderion (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No FOP in the UK.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No FOP in the UK.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No FOP in the UK.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No FOP in the UK.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting to delete the image below (own work). It is has poor resolution (I don't have higher resolution version). Its usage on other wikis is increasing and I'd rather upload a better, higher resolution image. File:Rawal Lake Islamabad.jpg Samar (Talk . Contributions) 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) MBisanz talk 02:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is in use, therefore we cannot delete it except for copyvio. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Trukmenistan is 50 pma; this work was created in 2008. Played by the US Navy or not, it is a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. According to {{PD-TK-exempt}}, the national anthem is not an object of copyright in Turkmenistan. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Composer: Ahn Eak-tai, date of death 1965. Korea is 50pma; this work is copyrighted in Korea until 2016. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This version was recorded by the United States Navy Band. Therefore, it is public domain. It may be copyrighted in South Korea, but South Korea is not the entire world. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Incorrect. This is a derivative work, and thus copyrightable. That the navy did the performance means only that they don't have the right to claim joint copyright over their version. It is still copyrighted in Korea, which it must not be according to Commons policy, until 2016, and in the US, which it also must not be, until 95 years from publication, which looks to me like 2044. In fact, there were cases in Korea where rights-holders sued over use of the song. In any case, the rights holders of the song at one point turned it over to the South Korean government, but it isn't clear to me if that makes this public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia article, the copyright holder released the tune into the PD. Lyrics are public domain-ed too. 171.231.80.116 13:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- It says they were released to the Korean government, not that they were released into the public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK, otherwise very low quality and not really useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is no real artwork on these, they are just notices containing text, This user is obsessed with deleting files and uses any reason he can think of to do so. The reasons he gives are not genuine Oxyman (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The whole signs in the UK category is full of copyvios, and I'm trying to clear it up. In this case I agree the sign is not a large part, but if the sign is removed then the image becomes useless and thus is out of scope. You tell me, what is the point of this image? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can good faith be assumed when this is clearly not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" and your nomination claims, and the whole "out of scope" thing is just used when people are obsessed with deleting things. The image shows something of a local area and it is geolocated. I don't have a problem with deleting copyvios, but what your doing is claiming everything is a copyvio just for the sake of deletion, in so many cases they are clearly not copyvios Oxyman (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The whole signs in the UK category is full of copyvios, and I'm trying to clear it up. In this case I agree the sign is not a large part, but if the sign is removed then the image becomes useless and thus is out of scope. You tell me, what is the point of this image? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I think the sign is probably de minimis, but, as MAttbuck says, without the sign the image is of low quality and essentially useless -- therefore out of scope. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's 3d Oxyman (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 2D vs 3D is a convenient shorthand, but it is not the way the law reads. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bit below board. It is in a public place, Manchester City Football Club wanted that to be the case. More importantly, has the Football Club asked for this image to be removed from the Commons? Stevo1000 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant. We do not host stuff because we can get away with it, we do it because it is legal. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- keep Another obdurate deletion request. And I do not see the point raised as irrelevant. This is a street scene that would be impossible to capture without the inclusion in-part of the billboard. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The image is framed so that the advertising hoarding is by no means incidental, witness also the title and the description. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- keep Another obdurate deletion request. And I do not see the point raised as irrelevant. This is a street scene that would be impossible to capture without the inclusion in-part of the billboard. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant. We do not host stuff because we can get away with it, we do it because it is legal. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We cannot keep images of graphic works in the UK unless they are de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
_001.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_001.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
_001.jpg){kind=link}
- oppose' De minimis rules. There are four of them, they are taken from an acute angle and each only takes up a small amount of the total image space. None would be reproducible from this image. The picture was taken in a public area and no one billboard is prominent or possible to copy from this image. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The photo is of the billboards, they're not just incidental. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- No one of them takes up any great deal of the picture. The angle at which they are taken makes it impossible to recreate any of them for any purposes in their own right. Definitely de minimus, unless of course we are starting a whole new precedent. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also the largest of the billboards is simply basic text, no art work or nothing and there is nothing copyrightable on it. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- No one of them takes up any great deal of the picture. The angle at which they are taken makes it impossible to recreate any of them for any purposes in their own right. Definitely de minimus, unless of course we are starting a whole new precedent. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The photo is of the billboards, they're not just incidental. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The principal subjects of an image are never de minimis. It would certainly be possible to copy the billboards from this image -- a simple adjustment in any good image editor, but that is irrelevant. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
_001.jpg){kind=link}
(Message to Jim) Hi, you recently deleted File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg. I believed this to be very much a case of de minimus and cannot see any justification for your deletion. Such deletions are frankly a slap in the face for contributors who give up time and resources to help build this database. I am going to re-upload the file in question and would appreciate it if any further reviews were conducted only by other parties. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
_001.jpg){kind=link}
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. Possibly DM though? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very little if any artistic input in this, there is just text Oxyman (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We deal so much in graphic works that we tend to forget that the first subject of copyright was text. Graphic works, sculpture, etc. came much later. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is mere text- with a tiny de minimis logo.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo is nowhere near de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I am the original uploader of this file (I retired my previous "Green Lane" account). I have to conclude that mattbuck is correct in this case, since the Flintshire County Council logo is in plain view on this image and at a relatively high resolution. It would clearly be possible to derive images solely of the logo from this photograph. However, the logo is copyrighted Flintshire County Council and cannot be reproduced without permission [3]. Therefore this image should be deleted. Best regards Rept0n1x (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. Possibly qualifies as 3D though? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- OPPOSE DELETION - How can a plain sign consisting solely of plain text words possibly qualify as an "art work"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative of {{PD-text}} sign. Wknight94 talk 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We tend to forget that text was the first subject of copyright when the concept was introduced hundreds of years ago. This text is certainly long enough and original enough to have its own copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
THIS CLOSURE IS BOGUS. What's the point of having a discussion if you're going to delete it anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is pre-WWII, so out of copyright. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. Not all images from the 1890s are out of copyright, so something from the 1930s is a stretch. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The author in this case is a commercial company, not an individual. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. Not all images from the 1890s are out of copyright, so something from the 1930s is a stretch. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Both the wall and the Coke ad have copyrights -- this infringes both. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. LGA talkedits 02:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Out of copyright, as explained above (the more modern coke ad referred to was cropped from the image). Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does Template:PD-UK-unknown apply?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- No proof it is indeed out of copyright; copyright last for 70 years after the "death" of the creator. LGA talkedits 21:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat again: corporate authorship. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Corporate authorship does not apply in UK law, it would have been created by someone and ownership and copyright would last for 70 years after that persons death. LGA talkedits 01:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Under the w:Copyright Duration Directive, article 1.4, the definition of "anonymous" is different if the initial copyright holder is a legal person. Under UK law, the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the employer (a legal person), not to the employee. Any 70 years p.m.a. term is nevertheless based on the year of death of the employee. This is further complicated by article 10.1 of the directive which says that you should use the copyright term of an earlier UK copyright law instead of the EU directive if the earlier UK copyright law defines a longer term than the EU directive. No idea what term that earlier UK copyright law specifies. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Corporate authorship does not apply in UK law, it would have been created by someone and ownership and copyright would last for 70 years after that persons death. LGA talkedits 01:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat again: corporate authorship. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- No proof it is indeed out of copyright; copyright last for 70 years after the "death" of the creator. LGA talkedits 21:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does Template:PD-UK-unknown apply?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I have two problems with keeping this -- first, we are told above that this is pre-WWII, but no evidence is given. Since there is very little information about Orantips on the Web, I think we need more evidence of age if we are going to keep it on those grounds. Second, there is no evidence that anyone has actually done any inquiry to determine the author. "Unknown author" in the UK requires that someone has done reasonable inquiry, not simply that we don't know. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that this is old enough. Unless published before 1926, it is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and thus unfree in USA. For the UK copyright status, pre-1943 might be enough, provided that the image indeed is anonymous, for which we don't have sufficient evidence. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 03:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
unused, useless, no categories, no encyclopedic value, ugly, etc, etc Frédéric (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly out of project scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The object is 3-dimensional. It has shadow, thickness and recesses for the screws. The post to which it is fixed is on a public highway. I can add coordinates if that helps. I can see no legal diffrerence from photographing a house or landscape from a public highway which is legal.--Charlesdrakew (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The possibly copyrightable part (the picture) is 2-dimensional, or at least as 2-dimensional as anything is in this world. And I'm afraid there is a legal difference. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The English courts have ruled that photocopies of paintings have no copyright even when they are created by owner of the work. It seems odd that this should be treated differently.--Charlesdrakew (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The possibly copyrightable part (the picture) is 2-dimensional, or at least as 2-dimensional as anything is in this world. And I'm afraid there is a legal difference. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is clearly not any of "buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship" which are the only things that the FOP exception applies to in the UK. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Self-promotional. Trivialist (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Please research before nominating. The file is currently used in an article related to the presentation cards and no autopromotion purposes. Amitie 10g (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use as illustration of modern example of business card. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It fell out of synch with its original. Also, needless file as exact PNG renderings of SVG originals are created on the fly by mediawiki. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Svg-files are not rendered correctly in the wikimedia projects, especially the lettering. The headline of the caption in the original is a good example. So a png-version is needed for use in articles, where a svg is not really useful because of wrong rendering. And in this case, there is no other german version since you changed the language of the original. --Don-kun (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- True about rendering of text, but that can be minimized. Proper use of CSS declaration for font family names will fix that in due time.
- Concerning translations, it is not a bad idea to mantain a centralized SVG original in the language most related to the subject (Portuguese, in the case at hand), from which localized versions, including in German, can be dully generated. More so in cases such as this one, where most of the text consists of untranslated toponyms.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you can minimize the problems with the rendering, please show it in the original. Like its now, it is not really useful (there is much more wrong rendering than just the headline). To avoid these problems, a png-version the best way I know, many other authors appreciate this. And concerning the translation, a centralized svg in Portuguese is ok, but then you can not delete the files in other languages. And at least I don't think the graphic changes in the map are all necessary and useful, for example the names of stations quarters are not specified in the newer version. --Don-kun (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- You ask: «Please show it in the original.» I had written: «Will fix that in due time.»
- You say: «To avoid these problems, a png-version the best way I know». I had written: «from which localized versions »« can be dully generated». This can be done either as edited SVGs or as PNGs made from those.
- You say: «there is much more wrong rendering than just the headline.» Care to specify here, please?
- You say: «I don't think the graphic changes in the map are all necessary and useful». Lets discuss that here, then, please. I’m not dead set about all the changes.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know that we can discuss the other file there. What I wanted to say is that I see no reason to delete this file. If the other file may be finished, you can upload a German language png-export of it as a new version of this file. But why delete it while the original svg is edited? --Don-kun (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Good point. Agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good point.
I withdraw my nomination -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Denniss (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to license conditions this license does not apply to images attributed to news agencies or individual photographers. This image is attributed to an individual photographer and should be deleted. Denniss (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Copyright violation.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose Again, de minimis. The copyrighted matter is in the image but makes up very little of it. This is picture of Whitehouse Lane which is lined with posters and billboards, it would be impossible to photograph it without an poster being somewhere, overall this takes up very little of the image. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I calculate the poster makes up less than 1/15 of the image total. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis, picture of lane not sign.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" only text is present Oxyman (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: does this sign rise to the level of being copyrightable? - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unsure, hence why I nominated rather than deleting it immediately. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment from author:I can see the problem. I am unsure whether it is complex enough for a copyright- and unsure whether a raised sign counts as 2D when it clearly has depth. If the decision goes for deletions some extensive notes need to be placed in the help files. My thinking was that the raised lettering and the imperfections in the castings giving texture beneathe the bottom line made in 3D, this was strengthened by the frame with flaking paint work.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The sign is not original enough to be copyrightable, not even the logo inserted there. Fma12 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" Oxyman (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not very original. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" logo is small Oxyman (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - for the same reasons as Commons:Deletion requests/File:A494 Flintshire sign - DSC05504.JPG, Best regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" logo is small Oxyman (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" logo is small Oxyman (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Logos are de minimis. Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep These signs are not works of art and could easily fall within Template:PD-textlogo as they consist only of simple geometric shapes and text; in the case of the wording, there is insufficient creative input for it to be copyrightable. The colour scheme is trivial and therefore also not copyrightable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Text is very simple. Yann (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. If notices are removed, it's useless and out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is no real artwork on these, they are just notices containing text that have been a bit weathered, Thiss user is obsessed with deleting files and uses any reason he can think of to do so Oxyman (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The whole signs in the UK category is full of copyvios, and I'm trying to clear it up. In this case I agree the sign is not a large part, but if the sign is removed then the image becomes useless and thus is out of scope. You tell me, what is the point of this image? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- How can good faith be assumed when this is clearly not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" and your nomination claims, and the whole "out of scope" thing is just used when people are obsessed with deleting things. The image shows something of a local area and it is geolocated. I don't have a problem with deleting copyvios, but what your doing is claiming everything is a copyvio just for the sake of deletion, in so many cases they are clearly not copyvios Oxyman (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. The whole signs in the UK category is full of copyvios, and I'm trying to clear it up. In this case I agree the sign is not a large part, but if the sign is removed then the image becomes useless and thus is out of scope. You tell me, what is the point of this image? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Text on the notices is PD-text, I would say. These are not copyrightable signs. Would be very surprised if "Fishing by permit only" and "Fly fishing only" in English and Polish could be copyrighted... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep For FOP to apply (as regards the UK), the item in question must be a "work of artistic craftsmanship"; the cases which consider the application of this term have tended to fall on the side of items involving significant creative input, such as "hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making, hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery, and items of dinnerware". This is just a sign containing text and an uncopyrightable symbol. The translations into foreign lanuages cannot amount to creative works, because they could just as easily be done by some automated means. The words themselves are simple instructions on a par with "Stop" or "Turn Left" and cannot be said to involve enough creative input to attract copyright in the first place. So IMO, the whole sign lacks enough creative input to be copyrightable, and I might have a different opinion if there were some original graphics or layout such as appear in information boards; but there aren't. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Logos uploaded by Sakawat crsc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: unused text-only logos of company with questionable notability.
- File:ANEX Gallerie 02.jpg
- File:ANEX Gallerie 03.jpg
- File:ANEX logo.jpg
- File:ANEX group Logo.jpg
- File:Sakawat Anex hossain 2012-03-16.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Sakawat crsc
Likely spam.
Art-top (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And also nominated questionable benefit image with doubtful authorship (low resolution, no exif).
- File:Friend for sakas.jpg
- --Art-top (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Not in use out of scope Ezarateesteban 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Primitive self-drawn logos. Unused, out of project scope.
- File:Logo deportivo.jpg
- File:Images5222.jpg
- File:ImagesCA8JFU5S.jpg
- File:Logoumbrovq0.png
- File:Lotto5123.jpg
Art-top (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused primitive driwing of different logos, some of them copyrighted. Out of project scope, doubtful authorship.
- File:Topper 1cvbd525.PNG
- File:Logo Brooksmnv311115.jpg
- File:Logo nike2312mnvc.jpg
- File:5554Nikecvb.jpg
- File:RBK445.jpg
- File:Blanco k10.png
- File:Lokonike2.png
- File:Logo Mitre.png
- File:ImagesCA86I1BG.jpg
- File:Legea.jpg
- File:Productosf.jpg
- File:ImagesCABR77LE.jpg
- File:Cristal Chile.png
- File:ImagesCAU0D3A4.jpg
- File:ImagesCAKSL67X.jpg
- File:ImagesCAH6M327.jpg
- File:ImagesCA198R44.jpg
- File:ImagesCA2HV572.jpg
- File:Deportes concepcion.jpg
- File:ImagesCAR9TNQ1.jpg
- File:ImagesCAZ00847.jpg
- File:331q16b.png
- File:0lotto.png
- File:Logopuma.png
- File:ImagesCAU5P85M.jpg
- File:ImagesCAK9J79Z.jpg
Art-top (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivatives of football club logos. A perhaps moot point, but web resolution and presence of extra elements (e.g. the bars at the bottom of File:Iberia en pes.jpg and File:Magallanes en pes.jpg) might suggest they were even taken from a website, not uploader's own derivatives. See also discussions above (resulting in delete), user talk page, and user deleted contribs: serial copyvio uploader.
- File:Colo en pes.jpg
- File:U.de chile en pes u.png
- File:U.de chile en pes chuncho.jpg
- File:Huachipato en pes.jpg
- File:Essbio.gif
- File:Rangers de talca en pes.png
- File:Palestino en pes.png
- File:O'higgins en pes.jpg
- File:Leo en pes.jpg
- File:Everton de viña del mar en pes.jpg
- File:Deportes iquique en pes.jpg
- File:Cobreloa en pes 2.png
- File:Cobreloa en pes 1.png
- File:Audax italiano en pes.png
- File:CD Antofagasta en pes.png
- File:Santiago morning en pes.jpg
- File:San marcos de arica en pes.jpg
- File:Curico unido en pes.png
- File:La serena en pes.jpg
- File:Universidad de concepcion en pes.jpg
- File:Universidad catolica en pes.jpg
- File:Ñublense en pes.jpg
- File:Iberia en pes.jpg
- File:Magallanes en pes.jpg
- File:Cuarta division.jpg
- File:Escudo de Santiago morning.gif
- File:SBU.png
- File:P en pes.png
- File:F en pes.png
- File:Cobresal en pes.jpg
- File:General velasquez.jpg
- File:Academia machali.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Gone --Denniss (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution photos without original exif.
- File:Poseidon collection.jpg
- File:KIENZLE watch Rolls Royce.jpg
- File:Armaturenbrett KIENZLE in Rolls Royce.jpg
Art-top (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused logos of insignificant organizations. Out of project scope.
- File:Poseidon Logo.jpg
- File:Kienzle2012LogoEst.jpg
- File:Kienzle2012Logo.tif
- File:Kienzle2012Logo.jpg
Art-top (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Part of photos in low resolution without exif. Part taken with 10 different cameras. Some photos alredy market as copyvio.
- File:Ghazi Road Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Airport Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Abdullah Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Canal Interchange.jpg
- File:GT Road Interchange.jpg
- File:Mehmood Booti Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Ravi Road Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Saggian Interchange LRR.jpg
- File:Balochistan-Montage.jpg
- File:Quetta-railway-station.jpg
- File:Ziarat-residency.jpg
- File:Hanna-lake.jpg
- File:Ocean Towers, Karachi.jpg
- File:Arfa Software Technology Park Lahore.jpg
- File:Winning Team of BACSAP07.jpg
- File:Roadside Park in Green Town Lahore.jpg
- File:Pace link road interior.jpg
- File:Pace Main Bloulevard gulberg.jpg
- File:Pace MM Alam Road Lahore.jpg
- File:Pace Fortress Stadium Lahore.jpg
- File:PUCIT Principal Office.JPG
- File:PUCIT Academic Block.JPG
- File:NUCES.jpg
- File:Punjab University Clock Tower.JPG
- File:PUCIT.JPG
- File:Evening in green town.jpg
Art-top (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Ocean Towers, Karachi.jpg is nicked from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=85308301&postcount=882. User:Debojyoti Bhattacharya also claimed authorship of a low-resolution version of the same photo at File:Ocean Towers.jpg. Great minds violate copyright alike, I guess. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Posters without permission. Unknown destination. Doubtful authorship, probably out of project scope.
- File:'Social Path' Web-Series Premier Date Poster.jpg
- File:Social Path Poster Swaztica.jpg
- File:J.D. HART.jpg - look like as derivative work from this photo
- File:JAD Social Path.jpg
- File:L or T 2.jpg
Art-top (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Crude, hand drawn, line is not aligned with dot. Not used. We have a good svg version of this. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Bad quality, easily replaceable.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Image is in use in multiple Wikimedia projects; if easily replaceable, should be replaced where used before deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If the image is being used in many WP projects it would be replaced with a SVG or similar before deleting it. Fma12 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion was ended with delete, but I really don't get it: what's the benefit of deleting this file while it's in use? It's only harmful. I think the delete should be reverted. Now it's just addiotional work, and not an easy one, to revert the file, after the Commons delinker removed it. You're just making work here... Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Crude, hand drawn, not accurate -- the TM symbol is used without anything around it. Not in use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It seems to have been designed by a person with serious problems in his hand. Fma12 (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Crude, hand drawn, not accurate -- the TM symbol is used without anything around it. Not in use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. Possibly qualifies as 3D though? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks 3d to me if it didn't have a white background it would almost certainly be so in the same way that wroght Iron gates would be Oxyman (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo without permission. Doubts about the triviality of the logo. Art-top (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also nominated logo variant: File:HIU-Vertical Logo.jpg. --Art-top (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
WTF?: {{PD-text-logo}} needs permission? Too simple. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Text logo, not copyrightable. Fma12 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is a prohibition logo really a "work of artistic craftsmanship" ? Oxyman (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pictograms and typographies are not original enough to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this illigal graffiti is a derivative from the Mario character owned by Nintendo and is thus a derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is rather de minims an the sculpture (the main object) is also "interesting" enough. Keep and maybe pixzelize. It's also open art and FOP. --Kungfuman (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is only FOP if it's permanent. And the photo does not present the sculpture as a whole, so the intent of display is clearly on the Mario graffiti.--141.84.69.20 12:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I confirm the doctrine (as well as an arrêt from the France's Cour de cassation) considers graffiti as an ephemeral work (like sandcastle or ice sculptures), and not a permanent one. --Dereckson (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is only FOP if it's permanent. And the photo does not present the sculpture as a whole, so the intent of display is clearly on the Mario graffiti.--141.84.69.20 12:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have hundreds of Graffiti images in Category:Graffiti and subcats. And Graffitis are considered permanently (at least in some countries, not sure about Ecuador). See this image and the license File:Flickr-spoogman-cc-by.jpg. I still think it's de minimis (compare the portions). If you remove or pixelize Super Mario the image would still showing a useful view of the monument and the location and maybe the background building, thus de minimis. But for my part it could be pixelized. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- FOP would have nothing to do with it if the person that painted the graffiti doesn't own the copyright. It is unlikely that an official Nintendo rep sprayed the graffiti. The focus of the current image is the ironic graffiti that makes the statue look like a Mario game, so I don't think de minimis would apply either. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you can tell by the file's usage, it is being used to display Mario Brothers on WMF projects. I've uploaded an edit removing the ironic Mario graffiti (though I'm not a shop expert so someone might want to do a better job). Pixelating the art would create a distraction that would make the file near useless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is absurd, the file is used in some Mario articles, but there is no Mario, it's confuse. And about copyright infringement, come on guys, it's a photo of a monument, not a direct reproduction of Nintendo art work, and even if it was, can be considerer fair use.
- Commons doesn't allow fair use. You can't have it both ways. If the image is used in Mario articles, obviously the Mario in the image is not de minimis, but rather it was the focus of the image. A graffiti artist does not have the right to release Nintendo's copyright, and Nintendo did not choose to have their IP used in this manner. Besides, if it is fair use, then why not use an actual picture of Mario, instead of this half-assed work-around? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is absurd, the file is used in some Mario articles, but there is no Mario, it's confuse. And about copyright infringement, come on guys, it's a photo of a monument, not a direct reproduction of Nintendo art work, and even if it was, can be considerer fair use.
- Also, you can tell by the file's usage, it is being used to display Mario Brothers on WMF projects. I've uploaded an edit removing the ironic Mario graffiti (though I'm not a shop expert so someone might want to do a better job). Pixelating the art would create a distraction that would make the file near useless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- FOP would have nothing to do with it if the person that painted the graffiti doesn't own the copyright. It is unlikely that an official Nintendo rep sprayed the graffiti. The focus of the current image is the ironic graffiti that makes the statue look like a Mario game, so I don't think de minimis would apply either. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete any revision where Mario is not obscured or removed, as this is being abused as a FOP/de minimis/fair-use workaround. Keep any revision that does not feature Mario. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're wrong, we couldn't abuse of FoP in this case, as (i) FoP in Equador only applies to permanent work ("... situada en forma permanente ...") (ii) we've a legal opinion from a court graffiti is an ephemeral work with solid arguments (the fact anybody could retoy or erase it) (iii) we don't have any legal opinion graffiti could be instead a permanent work (I ignore here the Kungfuman comment, as long as he doesn't note what jurisprudence or doctrine consider them as permanent works).
- You're again wrong, as fair use isn't allowed on Commons.
- Are you willing to help with copyright analysis or only hunt with stupid arguments any video game related file only because I deleted your Ninja Turtles logos for copyright infringement?
- DR aren't a game, it's serious business. --Dereckson (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Graffiti is illegal, therefore no copyright. In this case, it is also de minimis. Yann (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The previous DR was wrongly closed; it is irrelevant whether the graffiti artist can claim copyright on the creativity in their graffiti. What matters is whether their graffiti violated Nintendo's copyright on Mario, which it clearly does. Nor is this violation incidental to the image (de minimis) - the violation is the primary motivation for the photo, as demonstrated by the file description given by the uploader ("There was this art/monument in Quito, Ecuador on Brazil Ave. at America Ave., which nobody understood what stood for, until someone painted Mario Bros and the question mark over it. Now it makes sense."), and the filename given by the uploader ("File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG"). The copyrighted material is absolutely not incidental to the image ("look, here's a sculpture - someone's graffitied it, how annoying, I wish it wasn't in the photo"), it is the point of, and motivation for, the photo. The file is even in use on Wikipedia to illustrate Mario (de:Super Mario Bros. 3). There may be good uses for this file, but they will all require reliance on fair use of copyrighted material, which Commons does not allow (Commons:Fair use). Now, a version of the file with the copyrighted material photoshopped out has been uploaded at File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg; this file should be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, due to the violation of Nintendo's copyright on Mario. In view of the real use of this image on our projects, calling it de minimis is wishful thinking.
- However, as Nintendo might even benefit from this image (showing the reputation of Mario), it might not be impossible to get a permission from them for this image. Anybody willing to contact their legal dep. (Nintendo, US) noalegal@noa.nintendo.com? --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know of any precedent for that. What form of permission would they give? I'm all for trying to save an image in use, but I'm a bit stumped as to how this would work. If there is no precedent, it's certainly worth trying to create one, and documenting it! Rd232 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think if we get an email from Nintendo legal dep. saying they have no problem with using/publishing this image, I think this would be sufficient for us to keep the image. Asking for a license might be too complicated (3 different copyrights in this photo) and might put the barrier too high. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mm, I would worry about such an email being enough for Commons reusers. It would be fine for Wikipedia (and more likely for agreement to be had if permission is for that specific purpose). Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- We could ask WMF legal to consult us on that issue. They can't file the request by themselves, for wellknown reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure - but I'm not going to pursue it myself, I don't think the chances of success are high enough that I'm going to take it on. Rd232 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- We could ask WMF legal to consult us on that issue. They can't file the request by themselves, for wellknown reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mm, I would worry about such an email being enough for Commons reusers. It would be fine for Wikipedia (and more likely for agreement to be had if permission is for that specific purpose). Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think if we get an email from Nintendo legal dep. saying they have no problem with using/publishing this image, I think this would be sufficient for us to keep the image. Asking for a license might be too complicated (3 different copyrights in this photo) and might put the barrier too high. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know of any precedent for that. What form of permission would they give? I'm all for trying to save an image in use, but I'm a bit stumped as to how this would work. If there is no precedent, it's certainly worth trying to create one, and documenting it! Rd232 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think deleting this is en error, but I am not going to fight for it. It is not either a good or important picture. I have more useful thing to do. Yann (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear violation of our copyright policies, per Rd232. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment': "(Copyright) Protection does not, however, extend to the title or general theme for a cartoon or comic strip, the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes."[4]
- Cartoon characters are trademarked to their creators, and Artwork of cartoon characters are copyrighted to their Artists. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how this is different from File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg? Seeing that the pyramid is much more visible and central than the Mario graffiti? Yann (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OMG, Yann, do you want to have that also re-opened? The closing admin said this was a borderline decision. Besides, as most of the discussion is in French, it would be of little practical help here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. I think it is accepted that in this image the pyramid can't be avoided as in all the panoramas in here, and that it is therefore OK. And I see so difference with the Mario case here. Yann (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OMG, Yann, do you want to have that also re-opened? The closing admin said this was a borderline decision. Besides, as most of the discussion is in French, it would be of little practical help here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Louvre pyramid is itself a problem case, but it qualifies largely because the pyramid is an intrinsic, unavoidable, and non-removable part of the Louvre scene. Using the criteria at COM:DM:
| Item | File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg | File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG |
|---|---|---|
| X=Louvre Pyramid | X=Mario graffiti on sculpture | |
| 1. the file is in use to illustrate X | Yes | Yes |
| 2. the file is categorised in relation to X | Yes | Yes |
| 3. X is referenced in the filename | No | No |
| 4. X is referenced in the description | Yes (but description indicates X is secondary) | Yes (and description indicates X is primary) |
| 5. X is cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless | Yes (X cannot be edited or cropped out whilst still showing the primary image subject and leaving a usable photo) | No (This version has the graffiti edited out) |
| 6. X is the reason for making the file | No | Yes |
Rd232 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, your table is useful, but I have some issues. Some of these are objectives criteria, some of subjective ones. I think that objectives criteria are more reliable than subjective ones.
- You seem to think that the file name is important to determine DM. Therefore I renamed it. No such issue anymore.
- Criteria #4 can be easily changed.
- Criteria #6 is your interpretation. Both pictures could be taken with or without this reason. Yann (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So only criteria #5 is remaining. Yann (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The aim is to determine the subject of the image - if the copyrighted element is incidental to the subject, it is de minimis. Or if the copyrighted element is an unavoidable and unremovable part of the subject, but not itself the subject, it is de minimis. #4 helps us determine #6 - though #6 is anyway clear in this case - read the File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG file description. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I understand how you take your decision. Like I said above, I don't care much about that picture. I think you are too restrictive, but it seems that I am in a minority. I am not going to participate in this case further, unless you have new arguments, and you want specifically my opinion. Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to reconsider your views. De minimis is fundamentally the idea "yes, this is a violation of the law but it's too small a violation to matter, so it doesn't count. That basic understanding of what de minimis means has to inform our interpretation of how to apply it to particular cases of copyrighted works appearing in Commons files. Rd232 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- To me, it is quite clear that your interpretation is often (if not generally) too restrictive. cf. the Le Corbusier's plaza. Yann (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to reconsider your views. De minimis is fundamentally the idea "yes, this is a violation of the law but it's too small a violation to matter, so it doesn't count. That basic understanding of what de minimis means has to inform our interpretation of how to apply it to particular cases of copyrighted works appearing in Commons files. Rd232 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I understand how you take your decision. Like I said above, I don't care much about that picture. I think you are too restrictive, but it seems that I am in a minority. I am not going to participate in this case further, unless you have new arguments, and you want specifically my opinion. Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The aim is to determine the subject of the image - if the copyrighted element is incidental to the subject, it is de minimis. Or if the copyrighted element is an unavoidable and unremovable part of the subject, but not itself the subject, it is de minimis. #4 helps us determine #6 - though #6 is anyway clear in this case - read the File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg with graffiti.JPG file description. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No FOP in the UK.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom says FOP for 3D, and not always for 2D. As this is a poster I can see that it looks like it is not covered under FOP. Secretlondon (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- The sign itself dates from world war 2. The latest it could have been written was 1945. I don't know whether it was written by a government official or not, and what counts as 'publication' in these circumstances. It was at least 50 years old in 1996, which could make it public domain in the UK prior to 1 January 1996, and never published in the US. I don't know enough about copyright of text to be honest. Secretlondon (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hm... this could be a case of crown copyright, i.e. {{PD-UKGov}}, under the assumption that this plaque was written by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of Super Mario Sreejith K (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- As said in the discussion: "Even if falles show a copyrighted character, we can't assume it's a copyright infringement. Character could have been licensed to falles maker, or maybe it wasn't, but we don't know. Then this wouldn't provide ground enough to delete - even if a Disney character were in those images, where none is."--Coentor (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a {{Fan art}} work? --Spinoziano (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
ist schlechte auflösung Shooter1996 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. 640 × 480 Pixel sind so übel nicht. Das ist kein Grund für eine Löschung, jedenfalls nicht solange kein besseres Bild zur Verfügung steht. Du kannst gerne eine Version in besserer Auflösung hochladen, wenn du sie hast. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doubt "own work", no source. Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: See this DR with similar reasons for deletion. This is a raster version of a possible sacnned coat of arms; the SVG version has more plain colours.
- Attributing own work of an official insignia of a country or State is doubtful, but nominating for deletion without researching is ridiculous. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's a perfectly acceptable reasoning. It's very doubtful the file is "own work", and if it's not it needs a source. False licensing is a reason for deletion and done all the time, pay attention to more DRs and you'll see this is nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Researching... remove the .jpg extension of the file before the .svg et voilà, a vectorized version of the same Coat of arms (with obviously the limitations of the vectorization). Remember that most of the countries publishes their official insignias (flags and coat of arms) under the Public domain, so the author and copyright holder of the files that you nominated in your two realted DRs is, obviously, the United Kingdom Government, and sources needs researching, no deletions. Assuming good faith implies simply to research and place the right permission tags if are missing or incorrect (or false license as you said) of them. Amitie 10g (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- First off, that's not my responsibility. Second, even if we vectorized this somehow, it still needs a source, without that, it's potential as a copyvio makes it a deletable file. If the uploader can prove that it's PD, they can post that here and it will be kept and they have nothing to fear, they don't need you to defend them. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Researching... remove the .jpg extension of the file before the .svg et voilà, a vectorized version of the same Coat of arms (with obviously the limitations of the vectorization). Remember that most of the countries publishes their official insignias (flags and coat of arms) under the Public domain, so the author and copyright holder of the files that you nominated in your two realted DRs is, obviously, the United Kingdom Government, and sources needs researching, no deletions. Assuming good faith implies simply to research and place the right permission tags if are missing or incorrect (or false license as you said) of them. Amitie 10g (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's a perfectly acceptable reasoning. It's very doubtful the file is "own work", and if it's not it needs a source. False licensing is a reason for deletion and done all the time, pay attention to more DRs and you'll see this is nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Attributing own work of an official insignia of a country or State is doubtful, but nominating for deletion without researching is ridiculous. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 13 July 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) 09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg.jpg){kind=link}
License does not apply. Uploaded at hu.wikipedia with hu:Sablon:Közkincs-régi (Template:PD-Hungary). Common Good (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The file is published under the Public domain, that is not a license, and the file is currently used, so no reason for deletion. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I'm uncomfortable with this file. What's pictured is PD, but it doesn't look like a modern photograph--it's in B&W, and even though it is high-res (I copied the full size from the Hungarian WP), the high-res is too blurry to tell the difference between scan of large book print or photograph. In my mind, it could very well be a copy of a printed and copyright photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 13 July 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) 09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ankit Maity as Speedy (Fair use file. The image is copyrighted by en:Microsoft. It is a .svg version but it still has to be licensed under fair use. There is no copyright tag.) Sreejith K (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Similar one File:Iehelp.png --Sreejith K (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see this logo so complex to be elegible for copyright. Fma12 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Derivative work. The IE logo is copyrighted and cannot be used for this purpose. --187.126.107.14 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which purpose? Why do you think a blue e is eligible for copyright? Are there related court decisions or DCMA takedowns? -- Rillke(q?) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are many text-logos wrongly tagged as "fair use images" at Wikipedia. This is undoubtfully one of them: how could a simple blue "e" be protected by copyright ? Pretty ridiculous. Fma12 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which purpose? Why do you think a blue e is eligible for copyright? Are there related court decisions or DCMA takedowns? -- Rillke(q?) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Microsoft lists this logo as their Trademark[1]. You can use Microsoft logos for academia, or documentation about a Microsoft product [2][3]. However, Microsoft strictly prohibits any modification to their logos, "including, but not limited to, changes in the color, proportion, or design, or removal of any words, artwork, or trademark symbols. The logos may not be animated, morphed, or otherwise distorted in perspective or appearance."[4] While you may justify this is a blue "e", the font of the "e" and the presence of the orbital yellow ring is clearly a representaion of the Internet Explorer logo. "[Y]ou may not create your own logo to convey compatibility with any Microsoft software, product, or service."[5] Personal opinion: I'm fine with keeping the IE logo, but not in this form as it has been clearly modified from the original.Bulhis899 (talk)
- ↑ http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
- ↑ http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Permissions/Default.aspx#EEE
- ↑ http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/FAQ.aspx
- ↑ http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/imagegallery/logos/logoguidelines.aspx
- ↑ http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/FAQ.aspx
- What is being discussed here is the copyright of the logo, not the trademark (which is implicit not only in MS but in any other company). Strictly talking about the CR, a simple blue "e" cannot be subjet of copyright, in my opinion. Fma12 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Let's assume this is a simple "e". You're right, an "e" cannot be subject of copyright. However, this particular "e" is being used to represent Internet Explorer in all the pages it is used. As such, it is subjected to Microsoft's legal terms ("Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content"). Any logo that is used to represent a Microsoft product "cannot be modified or altered and must appear as they would within the Microsoft software".
- The hue of the "e" (though modified), and the yellow ring that surrounds it at the top left corner, is an obvious copy of the IE logo. The IE logo itself is owned by Microsoft.Bulhis899 (talk)
- A simple blue "e" with a ring sorrounding it consists of "simple geometric shapes and/or text." Indeed Microsoft is the owner of the trademark "Internet Explorer", what is not under discussion. But according to textlogo template, this symbol is not original enough to be copyrightable. This also applies to Ford, Sony, HP and other very simple logos allowed to be placed here. Fma12 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The hue of the "e" (though modified), and the yellow ring that surrounds it at the top left corner, is an obvious copy of the IE logo. The IE logo itself is owned by Microsoft.Bulhis899 (talk)
- Let's assume this is a simple "e". You're right, an "e" cannot be subject of copyright. However, this particular "e" is being used to represent Internet Explorer in all the pages it is used. As such, it is subjected to Microsoft's legal terms ("Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content"). Any logo that is used to represent a Microsoft product "cannot be modified or altered and must appear as they would within the Microsoft software".
- What is being discussed here is the copyright of the logo, not the trademark (which is implicit not only in MS but in any other company). Strictly talking about the CR, a simple blue "e" cannot be subjet of copyright, in my opinion. Fma12 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 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) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused image, inferior to File:Internet Explorer 9 icon.svg, with no real educational value. Fleet Command (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Sounds like a straightforward case of uncontroversial maintenance. Unused and not realistically usable. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as duplicate, redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a photograph that shows a document which appears to be eligible of copyright. AFBorchert (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just cite the licensing:
- This image is in the public domain according to Greek copyright law (Paragraph 5 of Article II, Law 2121 of 1993) because it shows or is part of an official text expressive of the authority of the State, notably a legislative, administrative or judicial text.
- See also the two other Diamonitiri in the same category. -- Malenki (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Malenki, it remains to be shown that {{PD-GreekGov}} applies to a permission letter by the administration of Mount Athos. This is an autonomous state according to the Greece constitution which does not necessarily make it part of the Greek government. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In any sound recording, there are three copyrights involved: that of the composer, that of the performer, and that of the sound recorder. The first one, that of the composer, may or may not apply based on the fact that Russian law says that "state symbols and signs" and "folklore" gain no copyright. However, the other two do apply: the group that played this work, and the one who recorded it must explicitly release it as free in order for this music to be housed on Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The latest version uploaded is by the official Red Army Choir, so it should carry the state copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right; the state does copyright works that don't fall under the umbrella of official documents. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- No no no...what I was saying with that edit summary is that the previous upload was from the Red Army Choir; the version we got right now is from http://gov.ru/main/symbols/gsrf4_5.html (by the Presidential Orchestra conducted by Pavel Ovsyannikov (official recording, 2001, from the Russian Government website)). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't we have a release on presidential materials? Would this fall under that? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it is under {{Kremlin.ru}}. The longer instrumental version is also from http://flag.kremlin.ru/gimn/ by the same orchestra. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't we have a release on presidential materials? Would this fall under that? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- No no no...what I was saying with that edit summary is that the previous upload was from the Red Army Choir; the version we got right now is from http://gov.ru/main/symbols/gsrf4_5.html (by the Presidential Orchestra conducted by Pavel Ovsyannikov (official recording, 2001, from the Russian Government website)). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right; the state does copyright works that don't fall under the umbrella of official documents. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:00, 13 July 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) 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- This objection seems borderline at best. Personally, having read the link supplied, I'm not convinced that this logo is 'a "work of artistic craftsmanship"' (or that the creator is "a craftsman and an artist") and thus excluded from freedom of panorama and a breach of copyright - that's not to belittle the skills of the (anonymous) designer of the graphic, but it's just a photo of a sign. Isn't there a "fair use" justification? But if it needs to go, it needs to go. A shame, and probably the opposite of what the person that designed it would have wanted, but there you go. I'd probably also better offer the following offences to be taken into consideration as well:
- Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know it's borderline, I nominated it because I wasn't sure about whether this was copyrightable or not: ones which are clear (for instance two of the ones you listed, thank you for bringing these to our attention) I just delete outright.
- Regarding the other ones, I would say Oxfordshire Way is ineligible for copyright, and Cat and Fiddle is de minimis. The school.... that's a trickier one, I'd be inclined towards deletion there. I should point out though that Commons does not accept "fair use" justifications. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:55, 14 July 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) 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No permission; see COM:ON#File:Roman de gare.jpg. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. It is from 2008. It seems the permission came from a site about movies not the movie site itself. If this is the case then Delete--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.lesfilms13.com is the website of one of the movie's production company, so it looks like the permission is not completely off. It's just insufficient because it doesn't specify a license and seems vague about which files are covered. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Euclidthalis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:IN Business Awards 2010.JPG
- File:Miss World 2004 Contestant Constantina Evripidou at CIFF Awards.PNG
- File:Cyprus Wind Farm Construction.PNG
- File:CIFF Golden Aphrodite Award.jpg
- File:Makarios Satellite Earth Station Cyprus Europe.jpg
- File:Nicosia Presidents Palace.jpg
- File:Constantina Evripidou at 2011 CIFF Awards.PNG
- File:Statue of Liberty Graffiti in the Old city of Limassol.jpg
- File:Graphity in the old city of Limassol.jpg
- File:Orites 82MW Windfarm.jpg
- File:CYTA Public Phone Solar Powered Booth.jpg
- File:Solar Roof Top Water Heating System.jpg
- File:Solar Water Heating System.jpg
- File:TFIFx Trading Forex.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, doubtful free files (lots of copyvios by this user) PierreSelim (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Euclidthalis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship of all images - many of them in low resolution, without original exif, other three images were photographed by two cameras. Some of them can be found in internet.
- File:George Syrimis.PNG
- File:BMW M1 (E26) Sports Car.jpg
- File:Makis Keravnos.PNG
- File:Michael Sarris.PNG
- File:CYTA Earth Station Europe.jpg
- File:Vassos Shiarly.PNG
- File:IKOS Offices in Limassol.jpg
- File:Alexis Galanos.PNG
- File:Charilaos Stavrakis talks at an IMH Conference.JPG
- File:George Vasiliou - Life Achievement Award.jpg
- File:Kikis Kazamias.PNG
- File:Kikis Kazamias.jpg
_Sports_Car.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Art-top (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 23:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubt "own work" for the coat of arms, no source. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Please research before nominating. The file is a PNG rendered version of File:Flag of Hong Kong 1959.svg (see closely the filename!!!), that is published under the Public domain, because is an official flag. Remember than the most of the newcommers uses the CC license by default, and the own work is only the result of a license choice, and not an Attribution for bad faith.Assuming good faith implies simply researching first and fill the file description with the proper information and permissions; not all the users do this at first time, but if all users uploads files for bad faith, all of them should be deleted, leaving Commons useless.
- Also, the only valid reason for deletion, is than the file is a reupload of a render of the SVG, that may be a duplicate, but the file page shows that the file is currently used, so is neccesary to edit all of these pages to include the SVG instead of this PNG file. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's curently used, because 41.140.163.10 change filename on many "country data templates". Malarz pl (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Per this related DR, Amitie has no clue what he's talking about. It's not sourced, it needs to go. Fry1989 eh? 06:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep National symbols are not copyrightable. Tagging it as PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible should be enough to close the discussion.Fma12 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- National symbols are indeed copyrightable. This file needs a source or it has to go. Fry1989 eh? 20:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It's only the problem of description. ——Naiveandsilly (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is NO SOURCE, unless there is one, it risks being a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's only a problem of description. Obviously the uploader is not the author and he cannot attribute the copyright of a national symbol (which are NOT copyrightable). But a simple change of licence should be enough. There is no need to delete the file at all. Fma12 (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It needs a source, we need to know where it came from. National symbols are indeed copyrightable, and if we don't know where this rendition came from, we don't know it's copyright status, and there's no license that can cover it without knowing it's status. Fry1989 eh? 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Renominating because the discussion is meaningless without a source for this rendition of the arms. If they're copyrighted, they CAN NOT be here, and without a source, we simply do not know whether it is or not. Under the precausionary principle, it must be deleted, number of votes for keeps is irrelevant. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for a different reason: it's a rasterization of File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong_1959.svg judging by the file name. The SVG should be used instead. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is it's not a simple rasterization of our SVG, the arms is very different. It has no source, nobody was able to provide one in the first DR, and it has to go for that reason. I don't care if there were 50 votes to keep it, if we don't know it's status, it can not be here. Fry1989 eh? 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 03:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:PD-Ukraine
[edit]Согласно wmua:Файл:Відповідь держслужби інтелектуальної власності.pdf нельзя однозначно утверждать, что произведения, авторы которых умерли в период с 1942 по 1969 года, находятся в общественном достоянии.
- File:1941-1942. Гастроном Москва.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Гостиница Донбасс, превращенная в региональное отделение гестапо.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Группа женщин.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Девушки из Сталино.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Индустриальная панорама 2.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Индустриальная панорама.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Кинотеатр Шевченко. На фасаде - вывеска Soldatenkino.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Немцы в центре Сталино.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Немцы на окраинах Сталино 2.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Немцы на окраинах Сталино 3.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Немцы на окраинах Сталино.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Оккупанты возле завода на Рыковке.jpg
- File:1941-1943. Оккупированная Первая линия.jpg
- File:1942. Аэропорт, расчищаемый оккупантами, зима.jpg
- File:1942. Перекресток современных улицы Артёма и проспекта 25-летия РККА.jpg
- File:1942. Разрушенные дома в центре города, ноябрь.jpg
- File:1943. Дом на пересечении Челюскинцев и Театрального проспекта.jpg
- File:1943. Здание АТС-92.jpg
- File:1943. Освободителей встречает население Сталино.jpg
- File:1943. Освободителей поют водой.jpg
- File:1943. Освободители на броневике.jpg
- File:1943. Освободители Сталино.jpg
- File:1943. Первая линия с освободителями.jpg
- File:1943. Сгоревшее здание пожарной части на Стандарте.jpg
- File:1943. Трупи заживо спалених німецькими окупантами в м.Сталіно науковців Донецького Індустріального Інституту.jpg
- File:1944. Стела у оперного театра 1.jpg
- File:1944. Стела у оперного театра 2.jpg
Anatoliy (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep them all. The document mentionned above changes virtually nothing. In fact the only meaningful phrase is the following one: The copyright term on the works, including those of Ukrainian authors died between 1942 and 1969, and if they are in public domain or not, should be determined individually for every work based on date of the author's death, year of publication, including posthumous, coauthorship, publication of the work continously in time etc. In fact, it can prove only that there are some works whose authors died after 1942 that are not in PD. Obviously, it's true - at least those with coauthors who died after 1969, and those published posthumously, say, in 1969 for the author died in 1942. Thus I don't see any reason to make any changes to these images, we don't have any new information concerning Ukrainian laws — NickK (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- These photos do not give any indication that they were first published before 1946. If they were not published by then, then they cannot stay on Commons.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Оставить однозначно 1941 и 1942 год как ПД-олд. Там нет авторов, установить их невозможно. Это в основном фотохроника ТАСС. --Vizu (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILYs (TALK) 08:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)