Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/08/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_velasco.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![144 File:Brenda K. Starr recording "I Want Your Love" LP, with producers Richard Scher, Lotti Golden, and Arthur Baker 1984.jpg](#File:Brenda_K._Starr_recording_"I_Want_Your_Love"_LP,_with_producers_Richard_Scher,_Lotti_Golden,_and_Arthur_Baker_1984.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_singer.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
not own work: copied from http://www.parkdalesc.vic.edu.au Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment COM:COPYVIO http://www.jayliphotography.com/#!/info/bio Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Saint Jean Douai © 2007 copyright Peter17 (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Presumably copyrighted book-cover uploaded by third-party; no evidence of CC licensing by publisher DMacks (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Book cover Эlcobbola talk 19:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Include files:
- File:Album68 copy.jpg
- File:276494 166292273424980 4189547 n-1.jpg
- File:Album68 copy 2.jpg
- File:TR-RAPPER.jpg
- File:Tristian Rapper1.jpg
- File:Tristian Rapper2.jpg
-- George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not the private media repository. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Out of Scope: Pretty sure that Commons is not a self-publishing platform for writers Enyavar (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image/vandalism. Érico Wouters msg 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 21:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 23:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 23:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 02:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ss iphone1.png Radioman2012 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
have a other logo and has a new one Radioman2012 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
just do not want to use it anymore Radioman2012 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan. Possible license laundering. Ralgistalk 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickrwashing Sven Manguard Wha? 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded by serial copyright violator, no indication that this is original work Ytoyoda (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
User blanked licence, I'm going to assume this means he wanted it deleted. Either way, unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Reproduction of an existing photo, likely at an exhibition. Questionable authorship. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File was deleted by Yann. INeverCry 18:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
some unknown person, home gallery picture, not used Motopark (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this shot from 1965 is indeed "own work" of the uploader who has a long history of copyvios. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:USFL Années 195.jpg claimed to be from 1957
- File:Fumel Equipe Première années 60.JPG claimed to be from 1960
- File:USFL Années 60.jpg claimed to be from 1963
- File:Fumel 1967.JPG claimed to be from 1967
- File:Fumel Année 67.JPG claimed to be from 1967
- File:Carabignac Entraîneur 70.jpg claimed to be from 1970
- File:Fumel 1970.JPG claimed to be from 1970
- File:Fumel Brive 1972.jpg claimed to be from 1972
- File:USFL 1978.JPG claimed to be from 1978
- File:Equipe Fumel 1978.JPG claimed to be from 1978
- File:Stade Henri-Cavallier USFL.JPG
Deleted: Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
out of scope (commercial) Nolispanmo 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader ([User:A3oert]) request Esquilo (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
EXIF data says "©2011 Mikel Healey Photography " Ytoyoda (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
bad quality image Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Background suggests this was taken from another website Ytoyoda (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work, based on editing and other uploads Ytoyoda (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
_velasco.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_velasco.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
_velasco.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
_velasco.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use. Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Possible copyright violation. No permission. Promo for Edgar Martínez Salgado. Trijnsteltalk 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a guy who was categorized as "artist from Spain", but nobody ever heard of Enrique Gil Barriga, unless he's the guy who donated 20 euros to the new album of the Eldorado band. :| See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enriquegilbarriga.jpg as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Low quality. Possible copyvio as well. INeverCry 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. INeverCry 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Blurry and unreadable. Possible copyvio as well. INeverCry 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture of low-quality. Ugly picture. Eduardo P (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Given that you uploaded it and that no project is using it, I think we can delete here, but neither of the reasons given by the nom require deletion, I'm fine with a keep result as well. Courcelles (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Be ugly or pretty is not a reason per si to delete any file. Béria Lima msg 08:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of a painting. Permission required. Sreejith K (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Per [1] Fry1989 eh? 00:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uva_Next_slpl_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"Public Web Camera View" seems to imply that the uploader is not the actual copyright holder. Wknight94 talk 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't know what the license for the original film is? Ralgistalk 01:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I read it: "Este archivo se encuentra bajo la licencia Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 3.0." and I do believe it is the license. The purpose of this picture was to show that the photos were original and not a right violation as you, Wikicommons, stated. Do what you like for I do not care and will not post any more. --Armienne (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
He recibido un mensaje que el file de referencia va a ser borrado por no tener una licencia clara y según veo en su página hay una licencia commons 3 bien definida. El propósito de este file es demostrar que Wikicommons actuó muy a la ligera al afirmar que unas fotos que yo había colocado violaban derechos de autor por haber sido digitalizadas con un scanner:
File:Bath-8-j.jpg
File:Bath-8-j.jpg ha sido marcado como una violación de los derechos de autor. Commons sólo acepta contenido libre, es decir, imágenes y otros archivos multimedia que puedan ser utilizados por cualquiera y para cualquier propósito. Las leyes de propiedad intelectual tradicionales no otorgan ninguna de estas libertades, y salvo indicación de lo contrario, todo lo que encuentres en la web está protegido por copyright y no se permite aquí. Para detalles sobre lo que se acepta, por favor lee Commons:Sobre las licencias. Puedes hacer preguntas en el Café.
El archivo que subiste será borrado rápidamente. Si crees que no es una infracción de los derechos de autor, por favor explica por qué en la página de descripción.
[editar] File:Bath-7-j.jpg
File:Bath-7-j.jpg ha sido marcado como una violación de los derechos de autor. Commons sólo acepta contenido libre, es decir, imágenes y otros archivos multimedia que puedan ser utilizados por cualquiera y para cualquier propósito. Las leyes de propiedad intelectual tradicionales no otorgan ninguna de estas libertades, y salvo indicación de lo contrario, todo lo que encuentres en la web está protegido por copyright y no se permite aquí. Para detalles sobre lo que se acepta, por favor lee Commons:Sobre las licencias. Puedes hacer preguntas en el Café.
El archivo que subiste será borrado rápidamente. Si crees que no es una infracción de los derechos de autor, por favor explica por qué en la página de descripción.
El hecho concreto es que fui ACUSADA PUBLICAMENTE de violar derechos de autor y eso es totalmente FALSO como muestro con algunos de los negativos originales de las fotos borradas que están entre las del File:Original.jpg . Podría también colocar las películas originales de todas las fotografías. Por mi parte pueden hacer lo que deseen con la foto, borrarla inclusive, pero debería quedar como evidencia de que ustedes se equivocan y toman decisiones muy a la ligera. No voy a colocar más trabajos. --Armienne (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. That's a negative of "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use." Lobo (howl?) 09:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hagan lo que les de la gana pero el principal propósito de este negativo es mostrar que ustedes acusan muy a lo ligero de violación de derechos de autor.--Armienne (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Brenda K. Starr recording "I Want Your Love" LP, with producers Richard Scher, Lotti Golden, and Arthur Baker 1984.jpg
[edit]
Possible license laundering. Ralgistalk 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Hello Raglis. I'm requesting that the file: Brenda K. Starr recording "I Want Your Love" LP, with producers Richard Scher, Lotti Golden, and Arthur Baker 1984.jpg," not be deleted from the article Brenda K. Starr. The reason given, "possible license laundering" is not a proven fact, and I have no reason to believe the work or the license granted to flickr by Ramalago, Attribution, Share Alike (posted 3/12/2011) is laundered. The photo (image) was posted to flickr well over a year before it was used in article, "Brenda K. Starr," and there have been no copyright issues with Ramalago and flickr, claims registered regarding copyright violations, or any evidence that the aforementioned account engages in license laundering. The image is relevant to the article, "Brenda K. Starr," as it depicts the artist working on her debut album (I Want Your Love) with the producers described in the article. The image is historical, showing Ms. Starr as she appeared in 1984, shortly after her role in the film "Beat Street." The image is valuable to music history and enhances the article in a manner consistent with the educational and encyclopedic standards set by Wikipedia. The image complements the text, and without it, the article would be less informative. No one else has requested that the above image be deleted, and I ask that the image be considered legitimate before it is deemed, without evidence, a laundered image. Thank you so much. I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia.Mayanalda (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Source website generally asserts "all rights reserved" in a few places and I can't find an explicit CC release on the given source page (also tried briefly clicking around). Non-free logos are out-of-scope. But not sure if the stylized MMC meets COM:TOO (in which case it would be {{PD-textlogo}}) DMacks (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
no source of copyright Saleem100 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless source and authorship information is provided (and provided that it confirms that the license is valid). I removed a {{PD-textlogo}} tag, which (a) clearly does not apply and (b) is contradicted by the (supposed) copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The file is from lb-wiki and the license there is "fräi benotzbar fir net-kommerziell Zwecker" - that is not GFDL because it dos not allow commercial usage. MGA73 (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
mala calidad Kallme (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Person on picture wanted this picture to be deleded. Its taken by me and thats my will too. Tumi-1983 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep Image is used in an article. No valid reason to delete. INeverCry 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's being used in a music festival article, added there by the same user who is requesting deletion here. It should probably be removed – the image is not really about the festival itself in any case. The person in the picture has no article of their own, nor does the band AFAICT. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
See above. Image is no longer in use. Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- How can I delete this pic? It's taken by me and I wanted to be deleded. As Jafeluv wrote the artist itself its not important for the Wikipedia. I have added tens of pics here, but I think I stop doing it if deleting them is this hard. Tumi-1983 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the person in the picture does not want his picture in commons, it is a valid reason for deletion as it violates {{Personality rights}}. Else, the only reason you can suggest for deletion is the image being {{Out of scope}}. I feel the second one does not hold true but the first one does and hence I vote for Delete --Sreejith K (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the person in the picture does not want his picture in commons, it is a valid reason for deletion as it violates {{Personality rights}}. Else, the only reason you can suggest for deletion is the image being {{Out of scope}}. I feel the second one does not hold true but the first one does and hence I vote for
- How can I delete this pic? It's taken by me and I wanted to be deleded. As Jafeluv wrote the artist itself its not important for the Wikipedia. I have added tens of pics here, but I think I stop doing it if deleting them is this hard. Tumi-1983 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Fastily. Yann (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
irrelevante, nada enlaza Kallme (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Still under copyright in US Vssun (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} --Sreejith K (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems that the artist may have copyright. Please see the discussion on the talk page Vssun (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The artist may have copyright Vssun (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a modern sculpture (according to [2], the monument created in 1979). No FOP in Russia, and no FOP for sculptures in the U.S. A.Savin 08:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DenghiùComm as Speedy (low quality. not useful.) FASTILY (TALK) 10:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Well yes, it's a .gif, so quality isn't the best, but since I added in the new version, it's no longer "not useful". This shows the fault line of an earthquake that "hit". I'd say that it has demonstrable encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Now the map is in a visible, useful and acceptable form. I think that this delete request can be archieved. Thank you at all. --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Own work is obviously not true. The uploader is a sock of en:User:Brunodam, with his many accounts he has uploaded several questionable images.
In the case at hand, the image might be old enough to be OK, but that needs to be evaluated. Amalthea 12:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Non-free derivative of a painting by Picasso, no FOP in France. Letartean (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Non-free derivative from a Picasso painting, no FOP in France. Letartean (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The text of this letter is covered by copyright until fifty years after the death of its author, Te Hapu. While the author certainly may have died before 1962, we will need evidence of that in order to keep this. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply by uploader:
Given that I have not yet used this letter as I intended to illustrate an existing Wikipedia article on the British Lions, and given the fact that Mr Woodward has probably now "got it in for me" asonly a few hours ago I reprimanded him for being sarcastic and rude to me, an inexperienced Wiki user, on another proposed deletion, I do not propose to object to this deletion. Mr Woodward is now going to trawl through all my images with a nit comb, and may in consequence undo a lot of work and totally demoralise a contributor. I will share my images in other ways. This is all not what I understood is the spirit of the Wikis, and I am surprised it comes from someone who has been flattered with honours by experienced Wiki administrators. Mr Woodward...you win. I have no time to deal with this. That said....I do wish to abide by copyright law and respect the need for the Wikis to do so. (Incidentally Te Hapu is not the author, it is Maori for The Family, in this case, meaning The Team)
Aspdin (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked through all of your images. That was not done because I "have it in for you". I was not "sarcastic and rude", but simply formulaic in introducing a mild slap on the wrist for accusing an IP user of vandalism when the IP user was entirely correct.
- When we see one problematic image, we often follow up by looking at the remainder of a User's work. In doing so, I found two additional problems, this and File:Saint James Oldham A Hirst cropped adjusted PICT0069.jpg, whose source and author are not the uploader and for which there appears to be no permission. On the latter, I suggested the appropriate process to fix the problem.
- I also found a number of useful images, both your own work and uploads of old images, so, on balance, you appear to be a contributor that we would like to encourage.
- I'm not sure what you expect of the process on Commons. You admit, I think, that this image is a copyvio. The fact that the letter has multiple authors makes it harder -- the copyright runs for fifty years after the last of them to die. Do you expect us to simply ignore the problem? Remember, please, that we delete over 2,000 images every day. This is not an unusual event.
- So, I will be sorry to see you go, but I would appreciate it if you would reconsider. Copyright is a very complex subject and making two or three mistakes should not "totally demoralise" you. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply by uploader:
Thank you for the encouragement. Maybe I misunderstood your tone originally. I will probably feel less discouraged, but also for the time being less inclined to support Wikis financially again until my hurt is gone. By the way I have also detailed the permission on the deletion request File:Saint James Oldham A Hirst cropped adjusted PICT0069.jpg
Aspdin (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also included, Category:Gods Property, which this template and only this template adds files to.
I have two problems with this template. First, it is not clear that any legal system can appropriately deal with a copyright said to be owned by God. Second, for commercial use it requires attribution to God. We allow attribution to the creator of the image, but not other persons or beings. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Legal system has nothing to do with anything donated/offered in the name of God... except laws of the Religions.
- clearing up all the "Copyright Confusion": "God's work" when translated into Intellectual Property terms is "Public domain", and so there can be no Copyright violation. Commercial use without attribution to God, will amount to Plagarism. Non-commercial use of "God's Work" is NEVER Plagarism. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's not public domain. That's introducing an attribution clause. You may wish to get clear on the differences between public domain and copyright in this earthly realm before inventing an intellectual property arrangement for the heavens. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- clearing up all the "Copyright Confusion": "God's work" when translated into Intellectual Property terms is "Public domain", and so there can be no Copyright violation. Commercial use without attribution to God, will amount to Plagarism. Non-commercial use of "God's Work" is NEVER Plagarism. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- "We allow attribution to the creator of the image, but not other persons or beings" -Show me where this rule is written on commons.
- Attribution is not required to any material entity (including persons or biengs) --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Back down on this planet, Wikimedia Commons is bound by the laws of the United States as well as the laws whichever country works are created in. By dint of being a media repository and not a church or mosque or synagogue or temple, except when they happen to be coextensive with the laws of the relevant nations, Commons is not bound by the "laws of the Religions". —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps unknown to you, and others voting for deletion, that there are people who do not believe in owning Knowledge, including knowledge contained in objects or files. Some even find it outright offensive. If Commons' purpose really is "a database of freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.", then Commons Administrators need to be considerate of other's beliefs --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I like to believe that hidden beneath this Wikipedia administrator's body, that I'm actually 6'7", have the abs of Zac Efron and the wit of Stephen Fry. Commons users are not bound to entertain these delusions any more than they are bound to entertain any other delusions people care to have. If I were to upload a photograph of something and claim that I have a strong and persistent belief that the copyright actually belongs to my dead cat, Commons would have no reason to entertain that delusion either. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps unknown to you, and others voting for deletion, that there are people who do not believe in owning Knowledge, including knowledge contained in objects or files. Some even find it outright offensive. If Commons' purpose really is "a database of freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.", then Commons Administrators need to be considerate of other's beliefs --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Back down on this planet, Wikimedia Commons is bound by the laws of the United States as well as the laws whichever country works are created in. By dint of being a media repository and not a church or mosque or synagogue or temple, except when they happen to be coextensive with the laws of the relevant nations, Commons is not bound by the "laws of the Religions". —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Legal system has nothing to do with anything donated/offered in the name of God... except laws of the Religions.
- Delete Not a legally valid license. "God" cannot be a party to legal proceedings or legally binding contracts under the laws of the United States and most, if not all, other nations. Therefore this is an unacceptable license. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you thought about Santa Claus, but we proved them wrong. Keegan (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Any images marked only with this template should be deleted, because there is no evidence that God has allowed for use by anyone for any purpose. If Eternal-Entropy would like to contact God and ask him to send in permission as per COM:OTRS, then we can revisit the issue. russavia (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds suspiciously like an invitation to engage in some divine socking. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Template edited, as per criticism. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not legally binding or valid. An inherently unverifiable entity cannot be a party to intellectual property proceedings. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ha ha, most droll. Well done. Delete - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The template does not represent God. While the creator is well-intentioned, Wikimedia is not for experiments in socialist anarchical religious copyright. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There would be some curious anomalies with this template as it would give trolls and hardline atheists the opportunity to template various unpleasant "Acts of God" as ahem "Copyright to God". It also risks distracting arguments as to whether or not a particular cloud formation, landslide or tapeworm was actually God's work. That said it would be entirely possible for various copyrights to be owned by various religious organisations, if only by people bequeathing their copyrights to them. But that would require people to be quite specific as to which god, goddess or pantheon was involved. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete What is this, I don't even. Frood (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutral. While I agree to all the above that "the copyright holder of this work is God" is blatantly wrong, Wikimedia Commons as a project is not in a position to forbid the author of a picture or other media to attribute their work to God for religious, humorous, or other personal reasons. WereSpielChequers laid the argument out well; in short I think this template is unfit for purpose, but we should allow "God's work" templates in general. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- So in your opinion what should "God's work" templates in general contain ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- A template which says "The creator of this image wishes it to be attributed to 'God'" or similar, alongside a standard CC-BY-something template, would be sufficient for the purposes of allowing the copyright owner to choose how they are credited. The key distinction is that while creators of media have that choice, suggesting that God is the copyright owner of any work (Ze transcends human law, of course, so this is blatantly false even within most religious contexts) is not a... particularly well-advised idea. Anecdotal: I once met someone who demanded that I cease using the rainbow as an LGBT pride symbol, because "God is the original creator and you're committing art theft". sonia 05:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- So in your opinion what should "God's work" templates in general contain ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Edited to clear up all the "Copyright Confusion". --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the present language is vague and self-contradictory. The statement that "this work is has donated/offered it to God and/or other Divine forces, relinquishing All Property Rights to this file" is extremely difficult to interpret. In particular, you have no legal right to require a certain manner of attribution if you have relinquished all rights. I suggest replacing this template with {{cc-by-3.0|God}} which will generate the following:
- Done. Edited to clear up all the "Copyright Confusion". --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- Would that suffice? In place of "Category:Gods Property" I suggest "Category:Works requiring attribution to God" or something similar. Alternatively, if you really want to put it in the public domain, you may state: "All rights to this work are released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver. The author requests but does not require that uses of the work be attributed to God." Dcoetzee (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I should point out that it being vague and contradictory is rather appropriate for god. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, the essentials of Template:Gods Work has been transcribed to File:Art Basic 2 Point Perspective.jpg. Is this fine ? For the category, how about "Category:Works in the name of God" or "Category:Works offered to God" ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- File:Art Basic 2 Point Perspective.jpg looks much better. The additional conditions are completely permissible because they only loosen the license. However, if you plan on using the same terms repeatedly, you should put them in a template. It's okay to have a simple one-page template that just uses another template and adds some notes. Also make sure cc-by-sa is what you intended, rather than cc-by-3.0 or another license. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- ok, edited the template again. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay that's looking better, but there are a couple problematic statements. The statement "Violation will amount to "profiting from Plagiarism", NOT IP Infringement" is contradictory (all licenses are enforceable solely via copyright infringement law - if you don't intend to ever enforce your license, only to request compliance, you should consider {{Cc-zero}} instead of {{Cc-by-3.0}} with a statement requesting but not requiring attribution). Similarly, the statement "relinquishing All Property Rights to this file, eccept attribution" is nonsensical, because attribution is not among the enumerated rights granted by copyright, and because if you waive any of the rights granted by copyright, you cannot enforce the license in some scenarios. I would simply remove these two parts. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The question of "legal" enforcement does not arise, because the works were already categorized into Public Domain from the creation of "Category:Gods Property". The Question here is, can God be claimed as the owner/author of a work, and if not, how best to attribute/credit God for the work. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, God cannot be claimed as the copyright holder or author/owner of a work. You can request that a work be attributed to God, since you may specify the manner in which it is attributed, but you are still the copyright holder. If you wish to release a work into the public domain, you must use {{Cc-zero}}. A work in the public domain does not have a copyright holder or "owner," God or otherwise, and you cannot enforce any terms on it, but may request anything you like (in clearly non-binding language such as "I request but do not require"). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Changed again. Already using the Public Domain license "Kopimi". And, these works are dedicated to God, not the Public Domain, so the wording of CC-0 does not suit these works. "Plagiarism is copying another person's ideas, words or writing and pretending that they are one's own work."[3] Dosen't matter if the work is Public Domain, not giving credit is Plagiarism! And therefore credit is required, even in public domain works.--Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- You may not be aware that the Kopimi license is essentially identical to the CC0 waiver - it surrenders all legal rights that would permit you to legally enforce a requirement of attribution in the US. As such, you must either remove the Kopimi license, or remove both the CC-BY license and the statement that "Credit to God is required..." There is no legal way in the US to enforce any condition (attribution or otherwise) on a public domain work, nor can you meaningfully "require" a condition that is not legally enforceable. It doesn't matter if you think public domain works should be attributed, you cannot require this, only request it. Again, I emphasise that the language " relinquishing All Property Rights to this file, eccept attribution" is nonsensical, because attribution is not among the enumerated rights granted by copyright, and because if you relinquish the rights granted by copyright, you cannot enforce the CC-BY license. I strongly recommend removing this nonsensical phrase. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are Kopimi and CC-BY licenses incompatible with each other ? If so, I'll remove the CC license. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- ok, edited to remove the CC license. Got your point after reading your post a few times. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- You may not be aware that the Kopimi license is essentially identical to the CC0 waiver - it surrenders all legal rights that would permit you to legally enforce a requirement of attribution in the US. As such, you must either remove the Kopimi license, or remove both the CC-BY license and the statement that "Credit to God is required..." There is no legal way in the US to enforce any condition (attribution or otherwise) on a public domain work, nor can you meaningfully "require" a condition that is not legally enforceable. It doesn't matter if you think public domain works should be attributed, you cannot require this, only request it. Again, I emphasise that the language " relinquishing All Property Rights to this file, eccept attribution" is nonsensical, because attribution is not among the enumerated rights granted by copyright, and because if you relinquish the rights granted by copyright, you cannot enforce the CC-BY license. I strongly recommend removing this nonsensical phrase. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Changed again. Already using the Public Domain license "Kopimi". And, these works are dedicated to God, not the Public Domain, so the wording of CC-0 does not suit these works. "Plagiarism is copying another person's ideas, words or writing and pretending that they are one's own work."[3] Dosen't matter if the work is Public Domain, not giving credit is Plagiarism! And therefore credit is required, even in public domain works.--Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, God cannot be claimed as the copyright holder or author/owner of a work. You can request that a work be attributed to God, since you may specify the manner in which it is attributed, but you are still the copyright holder. If you wish to release a work into the public domain, you must use {{Cc-zero}}. A work in the public domain does not have a copyright holder or "owner," God or otherwise, and you cannot enforce any terms on it, but may request anything you like (in clearly non-binding language such as "I request but do not require"). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The question of "legal" enforcement does not arise, because the works were already categorized into Public Domain from the creation of "Category:Gods Property". The Question here is, can God be claimed as the owner/author of a work, and if not, how best to attribute/credit God for the work. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay that's looking better, but there are a couple problematic statements. The statement "Violation will amount to "profiting from Plagiarism", NOT IP Infringement" is contradictory (all licenses are enforceable solely via copyright infringement law - if you don't intend to ever enforce your license, only to request compliance, you should consider {{Cc-zero}} instead of {{Cc-by-3.0}} with a statement requesting but not requiring attribution). Similarly, the statement "relinquishing All Property Rights to this file, eccept attribution" is nonsensical, because attribution is not among the enumerated rights granted by copyright, and because if you waive any of the rights granted by copyright, you cannot enforce the license in some scenarios. I would simply remove these two parts. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- ok, edited the template again. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- File:Art Basic 2 Point Perspective.jpg looks much better. The additional conditions are completely permissible because they only loosen the license. However, if you plan on using the same terms repeatedly, you should put them in a template. It's okay to have a simple one-page template that just uses another template and adds some notes. Also make sure cc-by-sa is what you intended, rather than cc-by-3.0 or another license. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would that suffice? In place of "Category:Gods Property" I suggest "Category:Works requiring attribution to God" or something similar. Alternatively, if you really want to put it in the public domain, you may state: "All rights to this work are released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver. The author requests but does not require that uses of the work be attributed to God." Dcoetzee (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This template is always false as a matter of legal fact, as only human beings can be holders of copyright under current copyright law. For the same reason, cats, rocks, and stars cannot claim copyright on works. God's human incarnation, if it ever existed, has departed and not returned. I would have no objection to a template which simply states, "The author wishes to thank God for His role in contributing to this work." Dcoetzee (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well; Copyrights can be held by corporations (for example). And there is good legal precedent for e.g. leaving things to animals in wills. So it's far from impossible. --ErrantX (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Corporations are people too, apparently! - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, All Nations and Corporations can own Intellectual Property, so why not the entity named "Kingdom of God" --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well; Copyrights can be held by corporations (for example). And there is good legal precedent for e.g. leaving things to animals in wills. So it's far from impossible. --ErrantX (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Corporations and similar entities are creations of governments. Gifts given to animals and children must be given to trusts or other entities which are also creations of governments. While in many respects they can act as if they were people, all such entities act through legally appointed human representatives. God has not unambiguously appointed a human representative on earth. Until he or she does, God cannot own a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because God is metaphysical. We cannot make verifiable attributions of intellectual property to an inherently unverifiable entity. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. According to Nietzsche, God died in 1882. Unless heaven has a copyright term longer than 130 years p.m.a., I think it's safe to say God's works are in the public domain. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether God can die, all of Gods Works are already in the public domain. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, you shouldn't be attempting to demand attribution for them and use a public domain tag. Of course, the part of me that spent years getting a degree from a theology college would like to know what your reasons are for thinking God's got a preference for public domain over attribution. Perhaps God wanted a Creative Commons license all along, which I guess makes Larry Lessig his prophet. Or it might just be that you don't understand what public domain is. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- God is within everyone[4], therefore God's work is everyone's work. But when profiting from Gods work, part of the credit for the money made needs to go to God. You can't say "I made profit by myself" when you had divine help through "Gods Work". --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- In which case, you shouldn't be attempting to demand attribution for them and use a public domain tag. Of course, the part of me that spent years getting a degree from a theology college would like to know what your reasons are for thinking God's got a preference for public domain over attribution. Perhaps God wanted a Creative Commons license all along, which I guess makes Larry Lessig his prophet. Or it might just be that you don't understand what public domain is. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Kaldari, Nietzsche only said that "the madman says" God is dead. In addition, we don't know what the copyright terms are for work that was created while living posthumously. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether God can die, all of Gods Works are already in the public domain. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have worked extensively above in trying to assist the user in revising the template to read something legally valid, but they are uncooperative. retaining or reintroducing language that is self-contradictory, nonsensical, or legally impossible after I have already explained why they should not do this. They demonstrate a clear lack of understanding about the relevant legal concepts. I will not be assisting them any longer, and continue to support deletion. It is in everyone's interest for the user to abandon this ill-considered project and use a standard license that has been reviewed by a legal authority. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- ok, ok; I made the changes you wanted. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another template created with the same layout, but different wording and no attribution required.
- see which one you like better. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I could support this one, and if you make the changes to the live template, it is likely we can close this off as a keep, given that the original issues are no longer relevant russavia (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. And since "God cannot be claimed as the author/owner of a work", moved the files from "Gods Property" to Category:Gods Domain named after Public "Domain". --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I could support this one, and if you make the changes to the live template, it is likely we can close this off as a keep, given that the original issues are no longer relevant russavia (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- see which one you like better. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is legally confusing; can copyright be assigned to someone without them explicitly accepting the assignment? I'll play Devil's advocate; how about instead of God we substituted Satan, would people object to satanists dedicating files to Satans will? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear consensus to delete - template is invalid with respect to copyright law FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
We should not trust the free license tagging at the flickr source. This image is the sole upload of that flickr user and, despite being tagged as CC-BY, the caption attributes it to EFE. Damiens.rf 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- By the way here is the image being used in a Spanish periodico where it's attributed to EFE. Speed delete as blatant copyvio. --Damiens.rf 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yo creo que no es la misma imagen, pues una es más alargada que la otra. Pese a ello, en la descripción de Flickr aclaran que es de la agencia EFE o que tiene algo que ver la procedencia. --Idealico (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Copied from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=355590437846437&set=a.251411828264299.59415.251405704931578&type=1&theater --— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AViviane+Batid%C3%A3o.jpg . Deletion seems bugged. --McZusatz (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's why a problem was reported at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Deletion". What can be done? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same problem as bugzilla:39221. --McZusatz (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good to know a bug has been filed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is the same problem as bugzilla:39221. --McZusatz (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's why a problem was reported at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Deletion". What can be done? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely that this is the uploader's own work Ytoyoda (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. Modern bare-lief. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Russia is also. Then what about theses all? Ukraine is also. Then what about theses all? --Interfase (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on the uploader's other work, source is unclear Ytoyoda (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as "merely raw text" (The identical figures are given as a table in the article "K-Verband" in DE-Wikipedia, the jpg-file has no additional content) Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Contains derivative work of a copyrighted character. SethAllen623 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's for an old, deleted page regardless, so there's no point keeping it around. I made an error in judgement uploading it, as I did not fully understand Wikipedia's stance on fair use/parody. Please delete it from the commons and sorry to take up the time. CriticalPictures 23:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use. Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a copyvio; as a rendering of a 2-d artwork it cannot be eligible for a PD license. Guinnog (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If the uploader can provide the original date the painting was published it may meet PD-old, if this is not forthcoming delete 188.29.79.134 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
to make place for a upload with this name Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Speedy (local source picture missing) Yann (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Picture collection must do like this File:Zona metropolitana de guadalajara..jpg, so local source pictures missing.--Motopark (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, he is a medical doctor, so I don't see any problem. But this image needs to be anonymized. Yann (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Picture edited so that the person can't be recognized. Old version deleted. Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Patient No. 16836-Dr. Placik-Breast Reduction, Chicago Illinois-Arlington Heights-two-plate photograph.jpg
[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as no source (no source since) Yann (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Picture collection must do like this File:Zona metropolitana de guadalajara..jpg, so local source pictures missing.--Motopark (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, he is a medical doctor, so I don't see any problem. Yann (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Despite being a medical doctor, he is not able to both claim copyright (as he does here) and release the image into the public domain. Additionally, there are obvious concerns about whether or not the subject agreed to the images being used in this manner. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- As the author of a photograph, he is allowed to do whatever he wants with it. In this case, and in all other cases where the patient's head is not visible, there is no privacy issue. When the patient's head is visible, the image needs to be anonymized, but it can be done by anyone on Commons. Yann (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yann, can you explain exactly what you mean by "anonymized"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The face should be blurred, so that the person can't be recognized. There are 2 images among his where it is needed, but not here. Yann (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yann, can you explain exactly what you mean by "anonymized"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- As the author of a photograph, he is allowed to do whatever he wants with it. In this case, and in all other cases where the patient's head is not visible, there is no privacy issue. When the patient's head is visible, the image needs to be anonymized, but it can be done by anyone on Commons. Yann (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Despite being a medical doctor, he is not able to both claim copyright (as he does here) and release the image into the public domain. Additionally, there are obvious concerns about whether or not the subject agreed to the images being used in this manner. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, he is a medical doctor, so I don't see any problem. Yann (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Patient No. 7181-Dr. Placik-Breast Reduction, Chicago Illinois-Arlington Heights-four-plate photograph.jpg
[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as no source (no source since) Yann (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Picture collection must do like this File:Zona metropolitana de guadalajara..jpg, so local source pictures missing.--Motopark (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, he is a medical doctor, so I don't see any problem. Yann (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be anonymized. Yann (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kept Version edited so that the person can't be recognized uploaded. Old version deleted. Yann (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be anonymized. Duplicate of File:Before & After Buccal Fat Pad Extraction.JPG. Yann (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
superceded by File:New_European_Driving_Cycle.svg DmitryKo (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotion of non-notable company. INeverCry 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Categorized as "artist from Spain", but nobody ever heard of Enrique Gil Barriga, unless he's the guy who donated 20 euros to the new album of the Eldorado band. :|
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enrimani.JPG Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And the following files :
- File:Oeuvre de l'artiste peintre Jean Laurent Albertini.jpg
- File:Dessin de l'artiste Jean-Laurent Albertini.jpg
- File:Installation de l'artistre peintre Jean-Laurent Albertini.jpg
photo of a painting, without a proof that the painter has allowed the publication under the CC-BY-SA license Orlodrim (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
While there is no assertion of copyright, the copyright status of the file is still unknown, whether it is in Public Domain or published on terms of a free license. We just don't know it. So it should be consdered COPYVIO for now. Wizardist (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the source Ezarateesteban 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
_singer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_singer.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio. INeverCry 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
_singer.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
_singer.jpg){kind=link}
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
collague without specify the sources Ezarateesteban 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It's the logo from this site or band - http://www.fret12.com/ . Not in use, possibly out of scope indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not encyclopedic, Used only in an erased page. Ciaurlec (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Completely senseless map. NNW (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Spain.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
SVG at File:Flag of Portugal.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Japan.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized logo of organizations with questionable relevance. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, probably coverd by copyrights, unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Commercial scope, unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Falscher Titel - falsch beschriftet Amrei-Marie 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Foto kommt zu grünstichig... Amrei-Marie 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture of low-quality. Ugly picture. Eduardo P (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Be ugly or pretty is not a reason per si to delete any file. Béria Lima msg 08:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bad quality Eduardo P (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, agree with uploader's wish. Image is hardly usable (due to strong window reflection) and, de facto, unused. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with Túrelio. Eduardo P (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No cumple derechos de autor. Thedark king10 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not complex enough to be copyrightable, I only see 3 colored balls. Fma12 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. INeverCry 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Infringe derecho de autor. Thedark king10 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This case was closed 2 days ago... I state the same than before (see above) about this issue. Fma12 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept as other. Yann (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No educational content. Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
maybe printed in Argentina, but a photo of someone in his 40s who has never been to A. is most likely not PD in the country of origin (not Argentina) Polarlys (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, should not be JPG, better versions exist Iketsi (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The source and author are not the uploader. Although this image does not appear to be on the source's web site, that site has an explicit copyright notice, so we will need permission via Commons:OTRS or some other way to understand how a CC-BY license applies here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply by uploader:
I did obtain permission for this image. It is detailed in the following emails:
Original Message -----
From: "Saint James's Church" <sjamespcc@hotmail.co.uk> To: <aspdin@gmail.com> Cc: <office@ajharchitect.co.uk> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 9:23 PM Subject: RE: Photograph of St James church exterior wanted. Dear Nigel Thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunatley, we cannot assist you directly in this. We do have a website with a photo gallery but everything we use is obtained from various sources, with permission of course. You are free to use any of the pictures from the photo gallery on the website. Alternately, you might like to contact the church architect who is most likely to have what you need. His name is Alan J Hirst and his e-mail address is:- office@ajharchitect.co.uk Another good source would be the Oldham Evening Chronicle. Yours sincerely Matthew Kennedy On behalf of S. James's Church, Oldham.
and then from me in reply:
Dear Matthew Thank you for that, and for forwarding a copy to Mr Hirst. I hope he may be able to help, if not then one day I will get myself to Oldham and take one myself ! Regards Nigel
and then:
Original Message -----
From: "Saint James's Church" <sjamespcc@hotmail.co.uk> To: <aspdin@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: FW: Photograph of St James church exterior wanted. Dear Nigel I've received this e-mail from our architect with attached picture if it is of any use to you? Matthew
the attachment being the permission:
From: office@ajharchitect.co.uk To: sjamespcc@hotmail.co.uk Subject: RE: Photograph of St James church exterior wanted. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:09:45 +0100 Morning Matthew. Please see above, I think this is a good photo and I give permission for its use. Alan
So please do not delete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspdin (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is, by the way, a good photo, and deserves some effort. Unfortunately, "I give permission for its use", written to a third party, is not sufficient for our needs. While that seems to give permission to St James Church for its use, it says nothing about broader use, gives St. James no right to sublicense it, and does not speak of commercial use or derivative works. Please see if you can get the architect to send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thanks, . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Further reply by uploader:
This following email, my initial email seeking an image and permission ought to be sufficient. It is a request for a photo to use on Wikipedia and the purpose is stated and existing example uses are illustrated by giving an example link. In essence I asked the church for a photo to use. They did not have one so they asked their architect who they knew would have one, and asked by copying my email to him. In response the architect sent a copy on October 14 2009 stating "I think this is a good photo and I give permission for its use".
In my humble view a Court in England would regard this chain of events as permission for use of the image.
Reply-To: "Nigel Aspdin, Derby, UK." <aspdin@gmail.com> From: "Nigel Aspdin, Derby, UK." <aspdin@gmail.com> To: <sjamespcc@hotmail.co.uk> Subject: Photograph of St James church exterior wanted. Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:50:26 +0100 Please could you pass this email to your webmaster or member of the parish with an interest in photography? I am trying to illustrate the work of Francis Goodwin, architect, on Wikipedia. To see how far I have got, please look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Goodwin Is anyone able to assist me by supplying a suitable digital photo of St James by email? Many thanks Yours sincerely Nigel Aspdin
You now have all the correspondence.
So again, please do not delete this file.
Aspdin (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Let's make sure I understand this correctly. Your request, addressed to the church, was
- "I am trying to illustrate the work of Francis Goodwin, architect, on Wikipedia."
- The church sent your message on to their architect. The response from the architect, who is the copyright holder, was to supply the subject image, saying
- "I think this is a good photo and I give permission for its use."
- If my understanding is correct, then my conclusion above is also correct. The permission speaks only to use on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that is not sufficient even for use on WP:EN. Both WP:EN and Commons require that files be freely licensed for commercial use, derivative works, and sub licensing, see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Guidelines and Commons:Licensing.
- As I said above, in order to keep it here, we will need a license from the architect using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Please send permission to COM:OTRS FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo appears to have been taken in Belgium which does not have Freedom of Panorama. It might be public domain due to age, but I don't know how old the building is. Rockfang (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Not PD-textlogo as far as I'm concerned. Not simple shapes. (Also not actually svg, so pretty useless at this size.) 99of9 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. INeverCry 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't buy the PD-textlogo claim - this is not just simple shapes. Also terrible quality, so likely out of scope. 99of9 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. INeverCry 02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Bogus PD-claim. Source site is not a government entity and says "© 2004 PT Maspion". -- Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-shape}} ? --McZusatz (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We don't know the TOO in Indonesia, so Com:PRP requires delete. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This image has already been provided to Commons my myself at File:FOX HD.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete File:FOX HD.svg due to inappropriate transfer to Commons and too tight crop. --Leyo 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with my crop. Fry1989 eh? 23:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I adhere to my opinion. The sloppy transfer is reason enough anyway. --Leyo 23:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with my crop. Fry1989 eh? 23:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: conversation says delete and duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Picture of low-quality. Ugly picture. Eduardo P (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Be ugly or pretty is not a reason per si to delete any file. Béria Lima msg 08:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality Eduardo P (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Already gone --Denniss (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Image contains non-free source material and requires permission, image is not covered by the standard hubblesite license (applies to NASA/ESA images only). Material in question is from Canada-France--Hawaii Telescope and from a NOAO installation, the letter does not permit commercial use Denniss (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, non-free. TheDJ (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as {{Cc-Hubble}}. It is credited here to "European Space Agency & NASA" (the other organizations being just acknowledged), and according to this page, "ESA/Hubble images, videos and web texts are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license". –Tryphon☂ 09:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have you really read the source page and the text? ->The Hubble exposures have been superimposed onto ground-based images, visible at the edge of the image, taken at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii, and at the 0.9-meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory, part of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Arizona. --Denniss (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the Q&A section of the copyright notice form spacetelescope.org which states clearly, that you do not need to ask the other contributors, the team of spacetelescope.org has already done so. --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have you really read the source page and the text? ->The Hubble exposures have been superimposed onto ground-based images, visible at the edge of the image, taken at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii, and at the 0.9-meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory, part of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Arizona. --Denniss (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like the images in question are these two (as per [5]) so maybe someone with access to OTRS should simply write a mail to both organisations and ask for permission under {{Cc-Hubble}} or {{Cc-by}}. If that request is denied this image sadly has to go. -- Gorgo (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the orignal version from hubblesite is probably not ok (at leat it is unclear, which means that - as Gorgo says - it's not ok before clarification). But the current version, which is uploaded by Tryphon (13:12, 22 July 2009) from spacetelescope.org is for sure ok. It has a slightly different copyright, cc-by-3.0, and I've updated the permission accordingly.
So please remove my version ( 21:44, 6 May 2009 ) and the original version ( 21:13, 28 February 2006 ). Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think the relevant copyright information is here: [6]. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted ... There is no claim of copyright on the source page, so I don't see why you want this to have a copyright. Yann (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The new source states all affected organizations have been asked and cleared the image for re-use. Let's assume that statement is correct. Denniss (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Photos uploaded by multiple account abuser
[edit]
Today I nominated for speedy deletion three copyvio photos of FC Vaslui footballers from three differents usernames: File:MikeTemwanjera.jpg, File:Mniculae.jpg and File:Mike and Annang.jpg. Since October 2011 I'm struggling with user who is creating a multiple accounts to upload copyvio photos of FC Vaslui. He usually edits and cuts photos he found on web, and now If you compare the EXIF of three photo I nominated for speedy with two I'm nominating here you'll se that the same software was used to edit the photo. So I've got no doubts that these photos comes from the same user. -Oleola (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Criador de pages (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos of organization and site with questionable significance. Out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PequeJustDance (talk · contribs)
[edit]film frame without permission
Art-top (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Unpocolocawikiwiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos - out of project scope. Low resolution, missing exif, one of them watermarked - doubtful authorship.
Art-top (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photos - out of project scope.
- File:Mahinatea Boordes.jpg
- File:ZG (4).jpg
- File:K & M (3).jpg
- File:ZG (5).jpg
- File:Mahinatea Bordes ( M-Cullen Stewart ) by As&N.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_As%26N.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Art-top (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brunoconstrutor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal images.
- File:Eu iluminado.jpg
- File:Eu boneco Celular.jpg
- File:Eu - CCAA.jpg
- File:Eu hiuhaiue.jpg
- File:Eu - CCAA(2).jpg
- File:EU AULA 1.jpg
- File:Eu =F.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lady Moster (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Files with doubtful license status. Either taken from the website "naturlichtbild.de" (like this one - origin), or from Panoramio with "all rights reserved" (like this one - origin).
- File:Birken im Raureif.jpg
- File:Rinchnach.jpg
- File:Innmündung.jpg
- File:12Mar06Kirchdorf01v.jpg
- File:Blick von der Hindenburgkanzel.jpg
- File:Pfarrkirche Kirchdorf im Wald.jpg
A.Savin 12:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Rucher du Parc du Château de Champs sur Marne.JPG
- File:Ben Bella.jpg
- File:Chateau d.Aunoy ou Aulnoy-Champeaux-77720.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne - La.maison du jardinier.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne - Cuve.baptismale.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Grille d.honneur.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Broderies.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Orangerie.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Vue Nord-Est.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Bain des chevaux d.Apollon.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs Fontaine de Scylla.JPG
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Salon d'assemblee.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Apollon.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne - Vasque au 2 visages Soleil et 2 Tetes de belier.JPG
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne - Le Bain des chevaux d'Apollon par les Tritons.JPG
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Bassin de Scylla.jpg
- File:Chateau Champs sur Marne Broderies.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I have reviewed all of these files with google images and they can all be found on various websites. Some have been resized and/or cropped. Thank you EugeneZelenko for the deletion request because I wasn't sure what to do faced with such a large number of copyvios. D4m1en (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions.
- File:Bird Thongchai KPN.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai Siamdara.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai song for King.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai concert2.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai Byrdland.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai 2.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai 1.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai Mcintyre.jpg
- File:Bird Thongchai.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cusack5239 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
- File:Girlfriend.jpg
- File:Lady.jpg
- File:One year.jpg
- File:Chris kristofferson.jpg
- File:Woman Depressed.jpg
- File:Emily 020.JPG
- File:Admiral beattie 002.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the most part, Delete. While there's some talent shown by the artist, it's not immediately visible how the chosen items can be used. The sole exception I can see is File:Chris kristofferson.jpg, and I'd first want to confirm that the pic isn't essentially a tracing of an existing photograph... Tabercil (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:20, 3 September 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)
Files uploaded by EyeShield 21 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
INeverCry 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Non-notable band.
- File:Askals at dayo bar 2008.jpg
- File:Askals album Mga Asong Kalye 1991.jpg
- File:Askals . takbo dapa ilag poster gig.jpg
- File:Askals at club dredd 1989.jpg
- File:Askals 2007 line up.jpg
- File:Askals 2000 line up.jpg
- File:Askals 1988 early line up.jpg
INeverCry 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Supersaverca (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SCOPE issue - commons is not a personal web host for Supersaverca. Also, no evidence Supersaverca (talk · contribs) is an agent of Supersaverca.com (the source, per watermarks) authorized to license on its behalf; OTRS ticket would be needed
- File:CS910 PTZ.jpg
- File:Covert Spy Fire Sprinkler Camera.jpg
- File:CCTV video surveillance and secuity equipment.jpg
- File:CCTV Complete 16 Dome or Bullet Cameras Surveillance Kits.jpg
- File:CCTV Distributed Fused Power Supply.jpg
- File:CCTV Camera Tester.jpg
- File:CCTV Bullet In and Outdoor Cameras.jpg
- File:Camera High Resolution Surveillance System.jpg
- File:Camera 4 Channel DVR Expandable System.jpg
- File:Bullet Vandal proof bullet camera.jpg
- File:Bullet License Plate Reader Camera SuperSaverca.jpg
- File:BNC Compression Type Weather Proof Connector.jpg
- File:Best video Processors.jpg
- File:ASUS Monitors.jpg
- File:700TVL WDR Box Camera.jpg
- File:700 TVL Vary Focal Night Vision Dome Camera.jpg
- File:650 TVL Vary Focal Vandal Proof Dome Camera.jpg
- File:620TVL Vandal Proof Dome Camera with WDR Function.jpg
- File:600TVL Vary Focal Camera.jpg
- File:600TVL Box Camera.jpg
- File:600TVL Box Camera Real Time.jpg
- File:600 TVL Vandal Proof Dome Camera.jpg
- File:540TVL Sony CCD Dome Camera.jpg
- File:520TVL Bullet Camera.jpg
- File:480TVL Night Vision Bullet Camera.jpg
- File:25ft bnc cable.jpg
- File:24V 12 volts DC Power Converter.jpg
- File:24 Volt Ac Power Supply.jpg
- File:24 Channel H.264 Network ReadyDVR.jpg
- File:22x Optical Zoom Box Camera.jpg
- File:18X Optical Zoom PTZ Camera.jpg
- File:16 Channel Network DVR with POS or ATM capatible.jpg
- File:16 Channel H.264 PCI-E DVR Card 480 FPS.jpg
- File:16 Channel H.264 PCI DVR Card 120 FPS.jpg
- File:16 Channel DVRS.jpg
- File:10X Optical Zoom PTZ Camera.jpg
- File:8 Channel Video Processor.jpg
- File:CCTV video surveillance systems.JPG
- File:8 Channel DVR Network Ready Bullet Camera Surveillance System.jpg
- File:8 Channel H.264 PCI DVR Card 240 FPS.jpg
- File:8 Camera High Resolution Surveillance System.jpg
- File:4 channel Stand Alone DVRS.jpg
- File:4 Channel H.264 PCI DVR Card 120 FPS.jpg
- File:4 Channel H.264 PCI DVR Card 60 FPS.jpg
- File:2.2 Mega Pixel 1080P IR Bullet Camera.jpg
- File:4 Channel Network Ready DVR with Monitor & Lockbox.jpg
- File:1adaaaa.jpg
- File:Banner wording.jpg
- File:SuperSaverca Video Surveillance Systems.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 19:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This photo was published by the New York Times and The Daily Telegraph (and many more international newspapers) within 30 days after it's creation. See w:Jahangir_Razmi#Firing Squad in Iran. The UK is one country of origin of this work (according to Art. 3 (1) (a) Berne Convention). It is in the UK and was protected on URAA-date, and therefore it is in the US.
Posted by me on behalf of User:Syrcro[7], due to current protection of the page. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The wp link is not functioning--Sanandros (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Corrected, thanks for the attention.--Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep Ettelaat, the newspaper that Razmi worked for it at the time and published the photo for the first time, is the holder of copyright of this photo. After several days, United Press International made an agreement with Ettela'at to publish it outside of Iran. Nevertheless, Ettela'at is still copyright holder of this photo, not united press and not other newspaper who got it from United Press. Ettela'at is an Iranian publisher and according to Iran law it can not hold it after 30 years of publication, so it is in public in Iran as well as whole world.Monfie (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep per above. Deror avi (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Art. 3 Berne Convention:
(1) The protection of this Convention shall apply to: [...]
(b) authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works first published in one of those countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union.[...]
(4) A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication.
- Iran isn't and wasn't a country of the union. This Photo was published within 30 days after it's first publication in Ir<n in the UK. The UK is considered as (one) country of origin. It is protected in the UK. -> It is protected in any country of the union (Berne Convention). sугсго 09:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 05:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
nie rozumiem powodów zgłoszenia?! - MikolajSobczak2
- Prywatne Zdjęcia powinny być w użyciu na stronie użytkownika, lub na powiązanych wiki. INeverCry 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
ponad rok czasu to zdjęcie wisi i nikt się nie przyczepił.... nikt.... do wczoraj.... - MikolajSobczak2
- Ja przeglądając stare zdjęcia Uncategorized i nominowaniu wszystkie nieużywane osobiste obrazy do usunięcia. Commons polityki pozwala te zdjęcia do użytku osobistego. Jeśli umieścisz je w galerii na userpage, byłoby zgodne z polityką. Commons nie repozytorium osobistych zdjęć, takich jak Facebook jest. Twoje inne osobiste obrazy powinny być w użyciu, a także, czy będą też w końcu jest nominowany do usunięcia. INeverCry 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Pseudo-historical portrais from gov.spb.ru
[edit]24 26 30 files from gov.spb.ru:
- File:Apraksin P M.png
- File:Arkharov.jpg
- File:Balk Alexander Pavlovich.jpg
- File:Baranov Nikolay Mihailovich.jpg
- File:Bruce Yakov Alexand.jpg
- File:Budberg Andrey Yakovlevich.jpg
- File:Chicherin Nikolay Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Dedyulin VA.jpg
- File:Devier Anton.jpg
- File:Drachevsky Daniil Vasilyevich.jpg
- File:Golstejn-Beck P A F.jpg
- File:Gresser Pyotr Apollonovich.jpg
- File:Kamenskij M F.jpg
- File:Korf Nikolay Andreevich.jpg
- File:Kozlov Alexandr Alexandrovich.jpg
- File:Launits Vasily Fyodorovich.jpg
- File:Lopuhin P V.jpg
- File:Munnich.jpg
- File:Obolensky Alexander Nikolaevich.jpg
- File:Ryleev Nikita Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Saltykov V F.jpg
- File:Shulgin Dmitry Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Trepov Dmitry Fyodorovich.jpg
- File:Trepov Fyodor Fyodorovich.jpg
- File:Wal V V.jpg
- File:Zurov Alexander Elpidiforovich.jpg
- ...
Delete: Common cause: Unknown (unidentified) contemporary artist. See info about gallery - in Russian (Google translate to English): all portraits has created near 2001-2003, up to 2003-03-31. Kaganer (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's official site of St-Petersburg Government. Maybe, have to change licence? --Arachno T 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Site is not a copyright holder. All portraits are included in the museum fund of the Russian Federation and owned by the Museum of History of St. Petersburg (and only exhibited as a permanent exhibition at the Smolny). Copyright holders are the authors of these portraits, and we do not even know the authors of each individual portet, only his incompleted list. --Kaganer (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: All of these "portraits" or completely fanciful or based on authentic iconography. In the first case we can not use them, not to mislead, or to use the reliable historical images that are known. These pseudo-historical portraits - the worst case, in any event, even if they were free. --Kaganer (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete. These pictures are modern and not copyright-free. Предполагаю, что в Смольном есть галерея прежних "градоначальников". Недавно такие галереи появлись в Ярославле, Твери, думаю, и в других городах тоже. Каждому губернатору кажется лестным вписаться в столь длинный ряд. Вся представленная выше мазня принадлежит руке одного дилетанта. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Я выше дал ссылку на описание этой галереи. Все портреты написаны преподавателями "Института им. Репина", так что авторов там несколько, только результат примерно один. --Kaganer (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Added 4 requests by these same reason:
- File:Lobanov-Rostovsky D I.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lobanov-Rostovsky D I.jpg)
- File:Golytsyn Alexandr Mihailovich.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golytsyn Alexandr Mihailovich.jpg)
- File:Ignatyev P N.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ignatyev P N.jpg)
- File:Vyazmitinov S K.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vyazmitinov S K.jpg)
--Kaganer (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)