Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/09/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
FKHFHFJJFJJHH 80.186.226.102 07:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion given. INeverCry 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Only a small cropped thumbnail appears on the source page, not this larger uncropped version. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader has been told to upload only the image versions that are explicitely released under OGL, not higher res versions taken from other sources Denniss (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: There is no evidence the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. With only three uploads it looks like Flickrwashing. Ww2censor (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- This image was published on Flickr under a correct license. Was no reason to remove 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no evidence the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. Just because there is a valid licence on Flickr does not mean it is correct. Can you prove the Flickr licence is correct? Ww2censor (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious wash, Flickr account was closed anyway Denniss (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: There is no evidence the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. With only three uploads it looks like Flickrwashing. Ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Professional studio photo uploaded by a user who also uploaded a non-free AP photo with the claim that it was their own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Chybný název palickap (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Denniss (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work", as it had been published already in 2011[1] and in May 2012[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
categoria agustin gamarra Fernando murillo gallegos (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Denniss (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
categoria agustin gamarra Fernando murillo gallegos (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Denniss (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Screen capture from a copyrighted work. Rondador (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Screen capture from a copyrighted work. Rondador (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Screen capture from a copyrighted work. Rondador (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Article is still in copyright in the USA. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Bad name. Now File:Statue of Saint Roch (Boskovice).JPG Lasy (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: There is no evidence the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. With only one upload to Flickr it looks like Flickrwashing. Ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: I'm afraid that it looks like a flickrwash when there is only 1 image on this flickr account. This is the uploader's only image on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Lobo (howl?) 09:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Yes, I have to agree with you. Since it being the only image that the user has ever uploaded to Flickr and Commons, it is likely a Flickrwash. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not trustable Flickr account. Dereckson (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Original is at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/43872626 - Kanags (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Will be replaced by new version Daviddaved (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
User has shown willingness to create fraudulent OTRS cooresponsance. This upload cannot be trusted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
User has shown willingness to create fraudulent OTRS cooresponsance. This upload cannot be trusted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete According to this statement, the user has no access to the Internet between 28 August and 25 September, yet he was able to post a comment to his talk page today, when he is supposed to be unable to access the Internet. Also, whilst travelling without Internet access, he has had no problems making about two hundred edits to English Wikipedia. The user is obviously lying to us and should not be trusted. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
User has shown willingness to create fraudulent OTRS cooresponsance. This upload cannot be trusted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The user claims own work on his talk page. Did this London group travel to Ghana, where the uploader claims to be living, or did he travel to London? It is possible to travel between Europe and Africa, but I'm not convinced that the claim is credible, considering the OTRS issues. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Says it's a screen cap of a match video. Judging by user's other uploads, it's likely from another source and not a self-created work. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: On other images this uploader claims to be an employee of Think Global School but does not provide any evidence for this. All the images from the school's Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkglobalschool/, some of whose images this editor has uploaded here claiming they were his own work, are licenced as "All rights reserved" so we don't know that the school freely licences this image. It requires an OTRS ticket. He may actually be an employee but may or may not be the copyright holder. Ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence uploader actually owns license to cover-art. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
After several attempts to keep it tagged as a NPD, I'm listing this for deletion. The image is a copyrighted title card of a television show. The uploader has attached several different licenses, none with any evidence. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC
- Answer and request to let my files be
I changed the license tags because YOU TOLD ME to you said I had the wrong one and I follow your advice but none of them you like. This file is clearly not violating any copyright as it is owned by Mr. Trevor Moore who has share it himself with his fans in several occasions. This specific image I altered it a lot to improve the quality and as said in the tags license with enough alteration it becomes my own work and I decided to share it with the fans and well as Mr. Moore I told you ask. But you are acting in a very disturbing, extremist way. I already explain things to you but you just can't won't understand. Please let it be. I am going to remove the deletion tag so you know. Because you are not correct. This file is not violating any rights. You have not been fair, helpful or fraternal as member of the community. I am not acting with any malice nor is my intention to violate any copyright as well that I am clearly not. I am just fighting for my work and for something I know is right. And I declare to be harassed by you. I demand respect and interventions from the proper authority. This had never happened to me I don't know where you came from. And this file has been let alone for months and months are you are the only one with a problem with it. You have to reconsider and think twice let things go and not take it personal because this is certainly not your business. I hereby also let you know that I won't engage in further argument with you as you are not worthy of my time. I already wasted a lot trying to reason with asking for your help and advice that your refuse to provide. This is good bye. I WILL ASK WIKI FOR THEIR PERMISSION SO YOU KNOW AND I'll CHANGE THE TAGS.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It is of low quality. Overall poor image. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It is of low quality. Overall poor image. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. The photographic quality is not good. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. The photographic quality is not good. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It has no importance on commons. Commons has better photograph of the subject than this one. JDP90 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It has no importance on commons. Commons has better photograph of the subject than this one. JDP90 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It is a low quality image. It has many stitching errors. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It is of very low resolution. It has no importance on commons. JDP90 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me. It has no importance on commons. Commons has better photograph of the subject than this one. JDP90 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Concerned on if the uploader actually took the photo themselves, or if they just happened to own a photo signed by these pretty famous musicians. Would be great to have this clarified - and either removed (or permission granted by photog) or kept with legit clarification. Sarah (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
=== Statement by Jeff Dubin, Author and Photographer:
I attest and certify that I was the photographer who took this photograph. I swear under penalty of perjury that I own the copyright to this photo. This photograph was taken by me at the Greek Theatre on September 13, 1975. I later met Crosby and Nash a few months later and then had them sign the photo. I was the producer and promoter for ALL the Greek Theatre concerts at UC Berkeley from 1975 to 1977. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Dubin.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. Built in 1996 according to en:List of tallest buildings in the Philippines. Stefan4 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This is my picture, a picture of me and I would like it deleted. RB-Wan (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Takabeg as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hayer.jpg Denniss (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The bottom right image was on this website in March 2011 but this collage wasn't added to Commons until July 2011. I can't find the image anywhere on Commons. The other images may or may not be copyright violations, but it takes too much time to search for them since I have to crop the collage in Gimp before searching, so I only checked this image. Some images in the collage look old and are probably PD, but need a source. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. {{Copyvio}} was absolutely correct as the uploader's claims that it's entirely their own work are clearly false. This is a collection of Internet images created by other people, several of which are clearly non-free: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Obvious copyright violations are supposed to be deleted on sight. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No description, bad quality, very small: out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.--Funfood ␌ 12:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, unknown building, and vast amount of alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. Takabeg (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this photo of an indoor painting/fresco of a church in Switzerland seems to violate the copyright of the painter, as at this location is seems not to be covered by FOP exemption from copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with detail photo: File:Granges signature peinture murale C Cottet choeur.jpg.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the description "created by SET (Japan) for Louis Vuitton", and thus highly likely it isn't the creation of the uploader. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 10:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a svg version of the file here 
Heflox (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
"Source: Internet" is not good enough. The file information page also claims that the licence is CC-BY-NC-ND and CC-BY. The file information page is very confusing. Is this a painting by an individual (in which case {{Noncommercial}} applies) or is it a work by the heraldry institute (in which case {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}} applies)? Stefan4 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately this 2001 monument has to be deleted since there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Board layout is incorrect (too many connections, see for comparison 
) Torsch (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Board layout is incorrect (too many connections, see for comparison ) Torsch (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my nomination for deletion, created in error. Apologies. O'Dea (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a set of files and mis-named a few of them. I have renamed a few as a partial recovery to the proper names, and this is one of the redirects created in that exercize. Now I need THIS REDIRECT (not the actual photograph redirected to) deleted out of my way so I can rename one of the files that I uploaded to the name that is occupied by this temporary redirect. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please delete this unnecessary redirect. I uploaded a file with the wrong file name. I renamed it immediately so this redirect is superfluous as nothing links to it. Housekeeping. O'Dea (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. Takabeg (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Gayane Khachaturian died in 2009. As long as I understand, User:Armenian89 uploaded this work without permission. Takabeg (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Only a small cropped thumbnail appears on the source page, not this larger uncropped version. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, the source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[10]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep Nothing suggests this not crown copyright, in which case it is now under the OGL, not falling under exceptions. —innotata 16:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The OGL only covers "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL", got any evidence this image has been made expressly available? One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete- Note: The image will be deleted if the uploader does not provide the original source. OGL applies only to files actually available on these websites. --Denniss (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- It needs to have been published or released under an FOI request, but it's unlikely this was not obtained from a public website or a FOI request by the uploader. Otherwise, I don't see any reasons it couldn't be under the OGL. —innotata 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide an exact source, it's not possible to determine if it's eligible for OGL or not. Only the very small version at the listed source may be eligible for OGL. --Denniss (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: original source of the image has not been provided Denniss (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio Edgars2007 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
mouse mark on the image Bhairava100 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Image doesn't appear on the first source page. On the second source page there is no mention of the Open Government Licence, but it does however state "The images are covered by Crown copyright (which is managed by the Office of Public Sector Information) which will require you to obtain a Click-Use Licence from OPSI, if you wish to reproduce them in any way" and also "You are free to use the information for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder and is regulated by the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005". Those restrictions mean it hasn't been released on a free licence, and the OGL only applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL", no evidence this is the case. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You should have no trouble providing a link to the National Archives page where this image came from, since it doesn't appear on the first source page. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to ""information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to James, the section on the offer by the Controller of HMSO is a release of permission as I laid out, I'll ask him to verify this. —innotata 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to ""information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep A published work of a Crown servant by a Crown Status body without a waiver from HMSO; there is no way that this can legally be anything other than OGL. James F. (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unless of course it's Non-Commercial Government Licence, which covers the exact same material as OGL and isn't unlikely since the release says it can't be used commercially. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, your fears are nonsense. It can't remotely be under the NCGL because DfE (DCSF as was) does not have the legal competence to decide what the licence is, and isn't granted a waiver by HMSO (the list is here). If it was under NCGL, it would need to explicitly cite it. Please stop reading a licensing text that was written before the UK's law was changed as valid now; it isn't. :-) James F. (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unless of course it's Non-Commercial Government Licence, which covers the exact same material as OGL and isn't unlikely since the release says it can't be used commercially. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: noncommercial restriction = noncommercial OGL Denniss (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/File:Rhun-icon.jpg Rondador (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Floppy36 as Speedy (image trop sombre et de mauvaise qualitée) (In English: Image too dark and bad quality) - Converting to DR. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Neither bad quality nor too dark. It may be a bit dark but that's correctable. --Denniss (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, I agree with Denniss, really. I just didn't feel that declining the speedy with nothing was a good idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)v
Kept: INeverCry 00:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
O ficheiro possivelmente não virá a ser utilizado por nenhum dos projectos Wikimedia Sílvia Gomes (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
EXIF data say "PLEASE DO NOT Modify this image by any means" which means a "no-derivative" restriction which is not allowed on Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Image under copyright Strainu (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ik heb het verkeerde monumentennummer opgegeven Ritipitie (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Its in Tamil language, a translation can be helpful. Sreejith K (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep was soll denn der Quatsch schon wieder? --Ralf Roleček 20:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kannst Du auch inhaltliche Aussagen machen und aufhören mich zu beleidigen? Ich sehe hier auf dem Bild eine Wiese und Bäume ohne jeden Bezug zum Orsay campus.--Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I also cannot understand the reason for this nomination - it is in use, and as long as its freely licensed this should be acceptable to Commons. -84user (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo was not free in Argentina on the URAA date (1996). Thus, it is not in public domain in the US, as required by Commons. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raúl Alfonsín and Commons:Deletion requests/Videla Cambalachero (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
EXIF data says: (C) by CHIOVITTI ROBERTO. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Duplicte flag of File:Flag of the Canary Islands (simple).svg Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader :
Completely redundant version to File:Wappen Aargau.svg, see also Category:Coats of arms of the canton of Aargau --Perhelion (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Multichill (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior unused superseded low quality thumbnail of file:Adlikon-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Adlikon-blazon.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of File:Andelfingen-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Andelfingen-blazon.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete too small to be useful, especially when compared with the svg. Kathisma (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of File:Hettlingen-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of File:Regensdorf.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Regensdorf.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Also not in use anymore on any Wikimedia page. --Terfili (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
high res version exists at File:St Clement Eastcheap - sword rest - front, close-up - 1394055.jpg — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of official vector version File:Weiach.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Weiach.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 2006, possibly in valid external use, so no reason to delete. --Krd 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of official vector version File:Zollikon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior superseded low quality thumbnail of official vector version File:Benken-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Benken-blazon.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete too small to be useful, especially when compared with the SVG. Kathisma (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Inferior unused superseded low quality thumbnail of official vector version File:Oetwil am See-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, unused, non-vector version of File:Oetwil_am_See-blazon.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Inferior unused superseded low quality thumbnail of official vector version File:Horgen-blazon.svg Perhelion (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Inferior, very small, unused, non-vector version of File:Horgen-blazon.svg which is of official source (Statistical Office of Kanton Zürich) Fränsmer (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. Uploaded 200x, possibly in valid external use, no reason to delete. --Krd 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to claim, not "own work". Though depicted died in 1974, the photographer may well have lived after 1942 and thereby still hold the copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to claim, not "own work". Though probably shot in war time, the photographer may well have lived after 1942 and thereby still hold the copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to claim, not "own work". Though probably shot in war time, the photographer may well have lived after 1942 and thereby still hold the copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted rendition, it's been deleted before. Fry1989 eh? 23:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted text, possibly images, and not covered by {{FOP-UK}} as it's 2D and not a work of art. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Piramerd died in 1950. There is no evidence of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete: This uploader claims to be an employee of Think Global School but does not provide any evidence for this. All the images from the school's Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkglobalschool/, some of whose images this editor has uploaded here claiming they were his own work, are licenced as "All rights reserved" so we don't know that the school freely licences this image. It requires an OTRS ticket. He may actually be an employee but may or may not be the copyright holder. Ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Extremely blurry, low quality image - there are plenty of other images of Clarkson performing and socializing that outweigh this one. I'd say this can be released from Commons. Sarah (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. INeverCry 20:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
an SVG containing raster file is useless Antemister (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The file does not contain a raster image. Its only an overlay of several, very long paths. so, there is no reason for deleting given. Antonsusi (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Eh sorry, I meant a autotraced SVG from a raster image. In any case, such images are rather useless.--Antemister (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
(German) Solange wir zu zweit diskutieren, können wir hier ruhig Deutsch schreiben... Also: Einzige zurzeit mögliche Alternative wäre eine Rastergrafik. Demgegenüber ist auch eine solche SVG frei skalierbar, ohne dass es zu Sägezahnrändern kommt. Diese SVG ist also besser und darauf kommt es an. Eine Löschung ist ohne besseren Ersatz nicht sinnvoll. Antonsusi (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Art-top as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not free map (see text about the table) Denniss (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is taken from http://metroalger.free.fr/PlanMetroAlger.pdf, thus a copyvio. NNW (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Portrait of the composer Aram Chachaturyan (1903-1978).jpg (1944)
- File:Martiros Saryan (selfportrait, 1907, GTG).jpg
- File:Summer Heat - Running Dog, 1909.jpg
- File:Египетские маски.jpeg (1911)
- File:Идущая женщина.jpeg (1911)
- File:Ночной пейзаж.jpeg (1911)
- File:By the Sea. Sphinx.jpg (1908)
- File:Martiros Saryan (selfportrait, 1907, GTG).jpg
- File:Summer Heat - Running Dog, 1909.jpg
Martiros Saryan died in 1972. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Martiros Saryan. Takabeg (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- all paintings created before Russian Revolution 1917 are PD-RusEmpire and should be kept. Only File:Portrait of the composer Aram Chachaturyan (1903-1978).jpg was created in 1944, is protected and should be deleted. --Shakko (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The head is cut, no notable people can be seen: out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think the main subject of the photograph is to show the restauration progress on this well known sculpture, IMHO it should stay, it is usable for documentary purposes about the statue.--Funfood ␌ 12:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This file don't represent a part of Berlin Wall as said in the description. I think it's a copyvio from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6692157 : it is an image from Mexico! So it should be deleted for that. Please don't delete it before 31 September, this file was uploaded with WLM. Sebleouf (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If it is a copyvio, we should not wait for one month to delete it. Yann (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Portion restante du Mur de Berlin 04.jpg","05","06" seems to be copyvios. It looks like a bad use of UploadWizard, EXIF data in "Portion restante du Mur de Berlin 02.jpg" and "03" contradict image description. --YSpirine (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ce sont toutes des photos que j'ai faites, j'en avais déposé certaines sur Panoramio. Il y a erreur, seule la première a été prise à Berlin. J'ai ensuite tenté de changer les légendes sans y parvenir. Je souhaite toujours les changer, mais ne sais comment faire.--Tango Panaché (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
"Evidence: Will be provided on request." - but not provided (see OTRS template that it was not sufficient) Bulwersator (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it better to just tag all {{OTRS received}} files with the standard {{subst:npd}} template after some time has passed? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
File washing - I strongly doubt that this blogspot.com-webiste is the copyright owner/creator or whatsoever of this photograph High Contrast (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted at: Commons:Deletion requests/The Russian Paratroopers Union uploads. – George Serdechny 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Unknown if the current image is licenced under the OGL. A small thumbnail appears on the source page, but not this much larger version. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, the source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[11]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As far as we can tell, the image is crown or crown-owned copyright; rights on such works are managed by HMSO. The OGL page says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to ""information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No source for the high-res version provided Denniss (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Contemporary icon: painted by a nun from the Orthodox monastery in Marcenat, which was founded in 1996. France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Because I do not want it on here. 70.196.192.127 05:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not want my pictures on here that is why. 70.196.192.127 05:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am the owner of this picture and the editor who uploaded the image to the commons. I am not sure why nom believes this image is (his/hers). If you will note the metadata associated with the image, it identifies this image as from a Nikon D5000 taken on January 28, 2011. It is certainly my camera, and certainly my image. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
First claimed by uploader to have no known author, now changed to "own work", which is hardly credible. Though probably shot in war time, the photographer may well have lived after 1942 and thereby still hold the copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader now as changed the license tag to {{PD-UKGov}} and again to "author unknown". --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[12]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crown OGL PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. DEFRA's copyright notice only applies to "information featured on this website", not all information they produce. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- You should have no trouble providing a link to the National Archives page where this image came from then, since right now all you're linking to is a Freedom of Information request that doesn't mention the OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[13]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep A published work of a Crown servant by a Crown Status body without a waiver from HMSO; there is no way that this can legally be anything other than OGL. James F. (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crown OGL PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[14]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crown OGL PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[15]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crown OGL PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Floppy36 as Speedy (image trop sombre et de mauvaise qualitée) FASTILY (TALK) 21:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete, this image can be used on our projects PierreSelim (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the uploader is not the copyright holder of this signature of Martiros Saryan who died in 1972. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but license information should be changed. File:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Signature.svg is a good example of how changing licence information.--Reality 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Seems like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Signature was deleted. It's definitely not Yerevanci's own work. If a correct license exist I'll vote keep, but if not it should be deleted. George Spurlin (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some one should also check User:Yerevantsi's uploads. It seems like he's been uploading lots of images claiming as his own. George Spurlin (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused image file (formerly used at en.Wikiquote[16]). No educational value. Unverifiable license (dead source link). Ningauble (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Its numbers are rubbish, too, since our US national debt was actually $4 trillion on day one of Obama's administration. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Geschw. Lenders, Hoflieferanten, Leinen- und Wäsche-Ausstattungsmagazin, Modewaaren, Allee- und Elberfelderstr. Ecke 24. Quelle- Düsseldorfer Adressbuch 1889.jpg
[edit]Out of scope as only raw text. See Commons:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content Sven Manguard Wha? 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The layout of the whole section and also the design of the letters is maybe a work more than just "raw text". --McZusatz (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no cosnensus to delete FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader :
- Stagepotatoe (talk · contribs)
To bad quality, not in use, some replacements under Category:Coats of arms of the canton of Aargau --Perhelion (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, this deletion request is a waste of time and energy. Also see Commons:Superseded images policy. Multichill (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do you talk about? What do you want to save, time, energy, images?
Info Note: This applies nearly to 12 DR on this day from me with the same reason, which has Multichill voted against. If we take a look on this Commons policies, he clearly misinterpreted COM:SCOPE and COM:SUP. (He is waste of time and energy, my and his and all other which looks on the poor images now and in the future...)
- COM:SCOPE: - ...are not... Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
- Discussion: There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value.
- COM:DG#Duplicates: - A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be exact enough a duplicate. Such files ought to be listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that they may be decided upon, case by case.
- COM:DG#Redundant: - Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests
- COM:SUP: - It is still possible to post a normal deletion request for superseded images (and/or to request deletion of "superseded" images for other reasons) Means mainly originals (before this policy superseded was a reason for speedy deletion)
- If these images should not be deleted, I realize that I am out of place here and I'll end my work on Commons. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This image seems to be a slightly modified version of this blog (http://uxblog.idvsolutions.com/) likely copyrighted / Cet image est une version légèrement modifiée d'un blog (http://uxblog.idvsolutions.com/) qui est sûrement sujet au droit d'auteur.
Pierre cb (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I clicked through the full page of the blog, but didn't find a similar image. Please provide a link not the root blog, but to the article where the image is shown to which you are refering. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a derivative of [17], linked in [18] Esby (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The images by John Nelson found in the blog and poster have been presented in different articles like this one [19]. All of them are copyrighted medias. Yax3 has modified the colors, put description in French, and cropped to only the Southern Hemisphere but the bottom image in this article it is basically the source image as is the one in the poster. Pierre cb (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a derivative of [17], linked in [18] Esby (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete clearly adapted from an existing source, which appears to be copyrighted. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 00:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The Russian Paratroopers Union uploads
[edit]-
SDR emblem
-
Col. Valery Yuryev
-
Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov meeting the paratroopers
-
Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov at the mobile command post
-
Col. Gen. Vladislav Achalov and the Ryazan Airborne School cadet
-
Col. Valery Ratkin -
Col. Gen. Valery Vostrotin at the Red Square
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_01.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_01.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
These files were uploaded to The Russian Paratroopers’ Union (SDR) Official blog: sdrvdv2002.blogspot.com. User High Contrast has just put the deletion tag with the following rationale: "File washing - I strongly doubt that this blogspot.com-webiste is the copyright owner/creator or whatsoever of this photograph."
Well, I strongly doubt that too, and even more of that, I can tell you with all the confidence, that blogspot.com-webiste is not the owner/creator or whatsoever of these photographs. It's just a hosting platform for various private blogs and official blogs of different NGOs, such as the aforementioned SDR. Owner and creator of this material is the organization, which uploaded these files. And the Cc-by-3.0 tag (in English,) which states: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License" is clearly seen at the bottom of their web-site. – George Serdechny 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete Thanks for clearing this - So it is a misuse of a Creative Commons license. You cannot just throw images from the web together on another website (without any permission) and publish them under free licensing (more infos can be found at Commons:License laundering). Owner and creator of this material is the organization, which uploaded these files - evidence for that? --High Contrast (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Evidence for what? Sorry, I did not understand what do you mean, saying "without any permission?" The permission is right there. It's clearly visible, and it's written in English language. Try again. – George Serdechny 13:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
O.K. I'll try to transcode the meaning of the mysterious abbreviation sdrvdv2002, which confused you, and might confuse some other users: sdr stands for Soyuz desantnikov Rossii, which is Russian for The Russian Paratroopers’ Union; vdv stands for Vozdushno-desantniye voyska, which is the Airborne Troops; and 2002 is the year, this organization has been established. I hope my explanation is plain and simple. – George Serdechny 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- This one looks more like some official Russian Army photograph. Who took this one exactly? Who is the author? --79.237.190.176 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to you like an official Russian Army photograph, because from Germany, the Soviet Army and the Russian Army looks the same. Back to the point. No it's not an official one. Colonel Yuryev, who is depicted on this photo, bears shoulder straps of the Soviet (not Russian) Airborne Troops, which is impossible for the contemporary Russian Army official photos. But this is absolutely common practice as for the Russian non-governmental veterans’ organizations, which, in their majority, accumulated mostly Soviet veterans, so called "Old School", like the Russian Paratroopers Union (or SDR VDV,) and Mr. Yuryev is currently the organization's Deputy Chief, so it's no wonder for me, that they posted his photo on the web, at the organiztaion's blog, so the fellow members could see their superior chief. Who took this one exactly? I presume, it's their press service, who produced all the site media (photos&videos,) not only this one. — George Serdechny 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
So, to catch up the thoughts of the IP. Searching aroung a few minutes on the web gives some interesting results.
- this image appears here as well but in a higher resolution. More licensing information would be very important - from where does it sdrvdv from?
File: Col. Valery Ratkin.jpg
- this image appears here as well. Again, a more reliable site than sdrvdv2002.blogspot.com; no CC-by-3.0 info there
File: Col. Gen. Valery Vostrotin at the Red Square.jpg
- this image appears here as well - here with a different copyright claim
File: Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov at the mobile command post.jpg
appears also here; Ria Novosti gives a different copyright information - the Russian ministry of Defence
All in all, I can assume that this CC-by-3.0 license info can only be taken for the texts provided on this site. There are obviously quite a lot copyright violations. As a consequence, we can think about to keep File:SDR emblem.jpg and File:Col. Gen. Vladislav Achalov and the Ryazan Airborne School cadet.jpeg because it seems to be a sdrvdv-work but we should delete the rest due to copyright violation or per precautionary principle. All in all, http://sdrvdv2002.blogspot.com is no good source - the copyright notice CC-by-3.0 is not used reliably.
@ Serdechny, here at deletion requests, we only talk about licensing problems. Talking about details of SDR VDV can be done elsewhere. --High Contrast (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Contrast, I agree about the first one: Col. Valery Yuryev.jpg. If it was posted there originally, then, alas, maybe we've got to Delete it. I said "maybe," because it appears at the Anti-corruption movement web-site in the memo, spread by the SDR VDV press service. That's for one.
But all the rest, clearly are reproductions: - Col. Valery Ratkin.jpg This one, you called "more reliable," is clearly a cropped version of an original one, which is posted at "unreliable" sdrvdv2002.blogspot.com. Keep
- Col. Gen. Valery Vostrotin at the Red Square.jpg No copyright claims there, just "Archive" tag ("Архив"). Smaller version. Clearly a reproduction. Posted at the Human rights watch group web-site. Keep
- Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov at the mobile command post.jpg Appears in extremely poor quality. But the claim is really dubious. If there's no mistake in RIAN copyright description, and it's true that this photo has been taken by the MoD, then we've got an OTRS-confirmed permission for this image (Cc-by-sa-3.0.)
As you may say, All in all. — George Serdechny 08:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Contrast, I agree about the first one: Col. Valery Yuryev.jpg. If it was posted there originally, then, alas, maybe we've got to
- Col. izvestia.ru seems to be a news site - definately more reliable than a blogspot.com website. Newspapers do not mark their own images as their own if they are the rights holders.
- Please watch the full size of that image (I thought you would do so): left botton side - a clear copyright notice.
- Besides a RIAN copyright description is of more weight than a blogspot.com claim. --High Contrast (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept 2 deleted rest FASTILY (TALK) 04:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[20]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Released under OGL per above INeverCry 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here [One source] that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[21]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Released under OGL per above INeverCry 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[22]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Released under OGL per above INeverCry 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. One source contains a tiny cropped thumbnail not the image here, and the other source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. The OGL doesn't automatically apply, but only to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. One Night In Hackney (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Image has been taken from the National Archives, which clearly states that they have been released under the Open Government Licence. The editor One Night in Hackney, seems to be nit-picking his words as it states in bold here One source that it has been released under the OGL and therefore should stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- As already mentioned, that source doesn't contain the image you uploaded. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- As it has been argued by myself and countless other editors, the images in hi res was taken by the Department in question and was released under the Open Government Licence and under crown copyright therefore the image is fine. However you could email the department in question to get further confirmation if you want, this site will help you do that:[23]. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- HMSO say the OGL applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". So unless you have evidence this image has been expressly made available under the OGL, it isn't OGL according to HMSO. You can't have it both ways. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Crown Copyright has released it under the OGL. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Released under OGL per above INeverCry 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this image has been released on the Open Government Licence. The source index page states "These images are copyright of the Scotland Office and are not to be used without permission". The OGL only applies to "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL", no evidence this image has been made expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). —innotata 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ignores what was said, namely that the OGL only covers "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". {{OGL}} states "Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office" - "almost all" doesn't equal "all" and the Scotland Office say this image is copyright them and can't be used without permission. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The details of what is under the OGL are being added to commons:UK Open Government License by James, whose addition to the template refers to the offer of the Controller of HMSO. Unless James is wrong or I've missed a delegation of authority or something similar, this is under the OGL. —innotata 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ignores what was said, namely that the OGL only covers "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". {{OGL}} states "Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office" - "almost all" doesn't equal "all" and the Scotland Office say this image is copyright them and can't be used without permission. One Night In Hackney (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Released under OGL per above INeverCry 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Magdalena Cubides Kovacsics Es una famosa cantante popular colombiana. Durante su trayectoria musical ha hecho parte de diferentes agrupaciones como Noktiluca, Motherflower y Pablo y sus Pepitas. Su caléndula voz combina con la magistral manera de co.png
[edit]
Out of scope as only raw text. See Commons:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content Sven Manguard Wha? 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tshrinivasan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivative work. The text and/or the images in these photographs could be copyrighted.
- File:Madurai Naicker Mahal Information Board.jpg
- File:Drawing of natarajar dharsan - at ekambaranathar temple, kanchipuram.jpeg
- File:Drawing of silver mavadi sevai - at ekambaranathar temple, kanchipuram.jpeg
- File:Drawing of pallakku - at ekambaranathar temple, kanchipuram.jpeg
- File:Drawing of lord shiva's marriage - at ekambaranathar temple, kanchipuram.jpeg
- File:Board about a tree went to stone at egmore museum.jpeg
- File:Notice Board at Valluvar kottam, chennai.jpeg
Sreejith K (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)