Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Chopela.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No information on the author. Hence, we cannot prove, if he died 70+ years ago. Leyo 07:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Vittorio Alfieri (Perugia, 1863. július 3. – Musestre, 1918. november 8.. Ha a fotográfus 0 éves volt Vittorio halálakor, akkor is most lenne 94 éves. Sajnos User:OgreBot 2 rendszeresen törli az adatokat. Tambo (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep - {{PD-Italy}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (closed by Leyo) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a lower quality and incomplete version of the image available here: http://i53.tinypic.com/24bth5l.jpg. Almost certainly not the own work of the person who uploaded it, despite claim. Could not find actual published book cover anywhere other than the "author's" Facebook page, however. And my Turkish is rusty. KDS444 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: http://www.esenshop.com/detail.aspx?id=65323 ■ MMXX talk 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted book cover. This user has already uploaded this image twice, and it has already been deleted twice before. 98.154.237.22 07:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an official staff portrait to me, own work dubious. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Never mind, user's other uploads have convinced me of copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Pretty low quality, wrong file format. Not used, so I assume a SVG replacement is in use. 99of9 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - actually, I take that back, I looked for a replacement in the category it's in, and didn't find one. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: mistaken nomination 99of9 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author or the year of creation. Hence, we cannot prove, if the license is applicable. Leyo 08:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Koháry István (1649. március 12. – 1731. március 29.) Országbíróvá választották 1715-ben. Akiről festették 281 éve meghalt. Lehet, hogy a szerző már több mint 70 éve halott. Sajnos User:OgreBot 2 rendszeresen törli az adatokat. Tambo (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, information is OK now. Leyo 11:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not likely to be own work (appears to be an image taken out of a pdf). False copyright date (Fr. Cavanaugh has been dead since 1979). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is from a family photo album; undated.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt this is the work of the uploader as claimed in the license tag. Found image in many places including http://www.jayakirana.com/2012/05/blog-post_103.html Eeekster (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative from unfree poster ru:Ты записался добровольцем?. Original author ru:Орлов, Дмитрий Стахиевич (1883—1946). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cevap ver.jpg. Art-top (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also other version: File:Bolshevik poster, Discovery Point Visitor Centre - geograph.org.uk - 1226736.jpg. --Art-top (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Note: Transferred to enwiki under PD-1923-abroad. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The author died in 1946 and worked during the Great Patriotic war, so according to the Russian law, the copyright term expires on January 1, 2021. IgorMagic (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: if this image is deleted, it should be undeleted on enwiki. Since it was published in 1920, it's public domain in the US. clpo13(talk) 18:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that the image was not free in Russia as of January 1, 1996, so the URAA rule should be applied. Am I right? --IgorMagic (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 23:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Suspected flickrwashing--unlikely the flickr user (now inactive) took this famous photo. Gump Stump (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Blatant copyright violation. The flickr user should get on a black list. Thank you Gump Stump for checking bot uploads. --High Contrast (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Fanciful but out of scope text Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
unused and insignificant self image Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
personal reason 114.143.144.184 08:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep & suggest closing the nom; non sequitur -- no valid reason given for deletion. Lx 121 (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.62.197.203 08:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Description says its a profile pic - but used anywhere since one year. Possibly uploader's self-pic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
On source page is written in the uncut picture: © Copyright by Angel / Hosted www.satlex.de Uwe W. (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (the Sculptors have been dear in the years 1950-1960 cf fr:Palais de Chaillot) No FoP in France Remi Mathis (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear that the uploader was the copyright holder, as the photograph is of low resolution and size, and is actually signed by the subject. It appears to be a scan of a photographic print. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative of a copyrighted work. The card itself is the subject of the photo, and the graphics are copyrighted. There is no way to make this de minimus. russavia (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wenn es so ist, ok ich brauchte es nur um den Flugzeugtyp erkennen zu können A 319 ;) und ich dachte die Schöpfungshöhe hier zu gering ist. es würde dann auch Category:Cabin safety information betreffen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC),
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I cant find any statement on the source page which states that the file can be used "freely". Please send a mail to COM:OTRS. McZusatz (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Picture is used in media since 2010 ([1], [2]) and so it is obviously not made in 2012 as claimed. With this and the wide spread in the internet (see Google Image Search) I guess it could be a copyright infringement and should be deleted. Pilettes (Diskussion) 11:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Pilettes (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted Sreejith K (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
2D art. Copyrighted to the painter. Sreejith K (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be closeup of non-notable lady - possibly the uploader herself Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
in the lower right corner there is the copyright mark! 147.108.61.93 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 20#File:Joseph Winthrop Holley.jpg. The file was deleted there because it failed the English Wikipedia fair use policy, but was apparently later uploaded here. There is no evidence of publication, so the file may still be copyrighted. Stefan4 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
unused user page image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal picture. Jespinos (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
By mistake the file was uploaded, a better saturated same file was uploaded few minutes ago. Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested.--Fanghong (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The nomination is right. Unused, uncategorized personal image - out of scope. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Uncategorized personal image. The commons is not a personal webhost. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio 
(discusión) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 15:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 15:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
_Chopela.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Chopela.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
depicted person died 1942, no clue about photographs author and when he died. Funfood ␌ 15:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
_Chopela.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
_Chopela.png){kind=link}
- File:Consuelo orellana.jpg Out of scope, unused personal images. Jespinos (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
taken from http://www.muniislay.gob.pe/index.php/el-distrito/mapa-y-ubicacion, doubtful if this map can be uploaded with a free license NNW (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted logo and thus is nonfree - see the company's website here: http://www.appinonline.com/index.html Geoff Who, me? 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in the Philippines. Built in 1990 according to en:SM City Sta. Mesa. Stefan4 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to wonder if there is anything about this building (at least the part in the photograph) that is actually copyrightable, i.e. original. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Without any information to the contrary, I think that we have to assume that any Philippine building is copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
wrong name Nini00 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: use rename request INeverCry 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Built in 1990 according to en:SM City Sta. Mesa. Stefan4 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- This should probably be grouped with Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTMP PhotoPhilia C9 SM City Sta Mesa.JPG. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this sign might be free. The pictures and the text are surely copyrighted, this file shouldn't be kept. Symac (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. 2008 building according to en:SM City Baliwag. Stefan4 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wrong in undeleting this image of a mall near our town, which was opened around 2008. SM malls, despite "boxy shoebox type style stereotypes", are considered works of architecture - pls. see this Philippine Star article. No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Can be undeleted once full FOP is introduced here in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I see only an insignificant wall. Any normal human eye will see this as a picture of parked cars, IMHO. Therefore the backside wall is not even DM, it has no significance neither as an architectural design nor as an important visual element. --E4024 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Architecture is considered as a form of fine arts in the Philippines, and a substantial part of the mall seems to have been intentionally included in the image. Also the image was used in an article relating to malls before, which means that the mall building is the central essence of the image. See also the input of my new nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. On Category:SM City Baliwag a warning is present that the images might be copyrighted. This image is an example, although there are several more. Perhaps @JWilz12345: would like to check them. This image clearly shows the architectural element. If it would be cropped, only an image of parking lot would remain, a barely relevant image. Therefore this image is deleted. -- Elly (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. Building from 2009 according to {{Information}}. Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Seal of en:Qingdao. Not sure about whether copyrighted or not, but at least not PD-self. Liangent (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
High probably copyright violation. For example please see http://vitadavips.iobloggo.com/17089/LPD%20banner%20iobloggo%205.swf Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Nonfree. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not know, it is derivated image.
I used the file File:Flag Map of the African Union (without suspended states).png with its permission (CC-BY-SA-3.0). •Torf• talk 10:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)- That file shouldn't be here either, the AU flag has been repeatedly deleted from Commons as non-free. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the file File:Flag Map of the African Union (without suspended states).png is non-free (CC-BY-SA-3.0 is wrong license), then also delete this my file with the flag. •Torf• talk 06:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- That file shouldn't be here either, the AU flag has been repeatedly deleted from Commons as non-free. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Denmark except for buildings. Looks like a recent work. MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
likely cpio - lots of google hits: [3] from before the Commons upload date. Source link is dead (inbetween?). JuTa 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is in PD; no permission tag removed and replaced with a PD-India but there's no authorship or publication info. —SpacemanSpiff 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete undated painting. No proof of PD. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Rapsar fotoğrafı ben çektim kardeşim. Toulouse'da tatildeyken.
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Related enwp article deleted, no self portrait, so no own work. Funfood ␌ 19:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a modern sculpture, no Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 20:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a modern painting (the depicted person is Mikhail Lavrentyev who died in 1980). A.Savin 20:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a Soviet sculpture. No Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Uploader, Michelle Carvalho (?), is not the photographer and it isn't clear if they have the right to publish this work or not, the image is already published on Chilean Canal 13 website for the Mundos Opuestos reality show . ■ MMXX talk 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the statue is out of copyright: the sculptor died in 1925. Óðinn (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the statue is out of copyright: the sculptor died in 1925. Óðinn (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
All of the user's other uploads were copyvios, and this lacks metadata and is very low resolution. Probable copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The Jacrews7 account on flickr is a very problematic flickr user account which provides images taken from somewhere on the web in order to release them under a free CC license on flickr claiming it would be own work. This specific image can be found on several websites: Here you have the uncropped version of this image which can be downloaded if you have an access on this forum (which I do not have). As such this file is a copyright violation. Finally, as a consequence, the Jacrews7 account should be banned from Commons and all files associated with this flickr account should get deleted. High Contrast (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- all Delete + Ban for Jacrews7. Full ack. Besides of the out-of-scope problem of those pictures, we cannot tolerate Flickerwashed (or what so ever) pictures here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree- Delete As the Flickr Upload bot uploader I didn't fully research the image, my apologies, and commendations to deletion nominator on a good catch. Nicoli Maege (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The architect of this building is Renzo Piano, even if it's only a partial view of the building, as there's no freedom of panorama in France, this picture can't be kept I think. Symac (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I already uploaded this in SVG format at File:MUTCD OM4-3.svg. SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 22:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- oh. brilliant. well if only i'd known that before. well nuke it then. i did copy my image description info to the talk page of your image just to preserve that, but your scalable version is great. i've already replaced it on the warning signs wp page. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The architect of the building is ALFRED LAULHÉ (1879-1956). As there's no FoP in France, this picture can't be free until 2026. Symac (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- These two other files have the same problem : File:Biarritz 566.jpg and File:Biarritz-Casino municipal-2012 03 14.jpg. Symac (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the pictured sculpture, which was dedicated in 1983. Powers (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Partially restored, with the copyrighted part cropped out.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the crop has much value, but I suppose it's fairly harmless. You should probably make a note on the image description page that it was cropped. Powers (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think this is an ancient copyvio. There are much higher resolution versions of this file available on the web, eg [4] 99of9 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Given there are many pages using this file, I would suggest to mass-replace it to a similar file, File:Generic football.png for example. --whym (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 04:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 04:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 04:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 04:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 04:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - text in a jpg INeverCry 04:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 04:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 04:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove the no-permission-template. COM:OTRS needed otherwise this file gets deleted. McZusatz (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
clearly just an image from the web, found multiple times by Google Image Search AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope personal pic. (not in use & deprecated license tag also don't help) 99of9 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal picture. Jespinos (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Also:
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author (User:Kohary is not the author!). Hence, we cannot prove, if he died 70+ years ago. Leyo 07:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Koháry István (1649. március 12. – 1731. március 29.) Országbíróvá választották 1715-ben. Ebből az alkalomból készült a metszet, tehát 297 éve. Lehet, hogy a szerő már több mint 70 éve halott. Sajnos User:OgreBot 2 rendszeresen törli az adatokat. Tambo (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind what information is relevant and which is not in such cases. --Leyo 13:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible that the author is Dominus Comes? --Leyo 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, After some research, I have come to this conclusion: This is an 18th century engraving after a painting by a painter named Carolus (Karl) Wilhelm Brand, published by Johann Andreas Pfeffel from Augsburg - either the older Pfeffel (1674-1750) or his son of the same name (1715-1768). If it's from 1715, as the description page says, then the father, of course. The engraver might have been Pfeffel senior or one of his contractors (the Pfeffels were engravers as well as publishers). The clue was the footnote linked by Leyo. It says: Carol[us] Wilhelm Brand pinxit Trynaviae, per Joh. And. Pfeffel Aug. Vind. I read this as follows: "Carolus (Karl) Wilhelm Brand from the city of Trnava has painted it. Published by Joh. And Pfeffel in Augsburg." - "Aug. Vind." stands for Augusta Vindelicorum, the Latin name of Augsburg. And over at Wikisource, there's an ADB entry for the Pfeffels. This makes things clear, I think; I'm going to update the image description accordingly, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a football club, copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused and I don't see any educational value here that the non-photographic versions in Category:Beşiktaş J.K. logos don't have. Jonteemil (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file Rapsar (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Photo taken by New York Police Department not a US Federal Government employee so not {{PD-USGov}} as tagged. No supporting evidence provided for claim in description that the image was released into public domain as part of Freedom of Information Act request. January (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: There are multiple sources supporting the fact that the image in question was released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request to the NIST by ABC News.
- "Semendinger took three rolls of film from his Minolta camera and 245 digital shots. The detective provided the 9/11 Commission with the digital images." "After a Freedom of Information Act requested to the National Institute of Standards and Technology last year, ABC News has published tragic aerial photos of the World Trade Center collapsing on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001."
- From ABC News: "ABC News (reporter: Dianne Sawyer) obtained these images after filing a Freedom of Information Act request in 2009 [August 14, 2009] with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which collected them as part of an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center."[5]
- From the New York Times: "ABC News says it obtained the images after it filed a Freedom of Information Act request last year with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the collapse."[6]
- From USA Today: "ABC said the NIST gave the network 2,779 pictures on nine CDs, saying some of the photographs had never been released before."[7]
- From the Daily Mail (United Kingdom): Dramatic images of World Trade Centre collapse on 9/11 released for first time[8]
- From the NYPD Police Benevolent Association: His photographs re-emerged recently after ABC News’ Diane Sawyer obtained them from the 9/11 Commission under the Freedom of Information Act. ABC identified the photographer, who had made sure to label the material when handing it over to the panel chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean.[9]
- From the United States Department of Justice: "The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government."[10]
- Comment—releasing requested material through a FOIA request doesn't make it public domain. It gives a person access to the material, just like buying a book or borrowing one from the library gives that same person access to the content of the book. FOIA has nothing to do with releasing material into the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 04:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- When information is released through a Freedom of Information Act request there are no caveats or conditions attached. The information while released to the person or entity making the request is not for their exclusive perusal or use. The information is considered made available to the public.
- The NIST requested the images as part of the 9-11 Commission investigation, the images were given voluntarily by the various photographers including Det. Greg Semendinger without restrictions as to their use. That is why ABC News filed the FOIA request with the NIST, the federal agency which had possession and control of the images which were "given" to it.
- The release to ABC News is tanatamount to release to the public. That is why the images are displayed on multiple websites including various other news agencies such as the New York Times.
- Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996.:
- Section 2. Findings and Purposes
- "The findings make clear that Congress enacted the FOIA to require Federal agencies to make records available to the public through public inspection and upon the request of any person for any public or private use. The findings also acknowledge the increase in the government's use of computers and exhorts agencies to use new technology to enhance public access to government information."
- Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996.:
- "The purposes of the bill include improving public access to government information and records, and reducing the delays in agencies' responses to request for records under the Freedom of Information Act."[11]
7mike5000 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
NPR News: "The pictures were released after ABC News filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Semendinger is glad they're out. "The rest of the world should see them," he remarked, because they provide "a total perspective of what happened that day."[12].
NBC News ( 2/10/2010): Semendinger said he gave the digital images to the 9/11 Commission and believes those images were released by the NSIT.[13] 7mike5000 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The point made above is still valid. Public domain in this context means not subject to copyright, making information publicly available does not necessarily mean the creators give up copyright on it. January (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless clear evidence is produced that Semendinger has released the photo to the public domain, i.e., that he has allowed everyone free use of it (not just the 9-11 Commission). FOIA releases of copyrighted materials do not void the copyright, and are just a form of fair use, according to the Justice Department. (See FOIA Update Vol. IV, No. 4, 1983, OIP Guidance: Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA for details.) --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection, this is presumably a work for hire, meaning the copyright holder would be the NYPD, and we would need evidence they have freely released the photo, not Semendinger. --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Should I hop on the LIRR and go out to Wantagh where he lives and ask him to sign a notarized document addressed to the Wikimedia foundation stating that he did not copyright the digital images that where released via the FOIA act request? Is that what it takes?
- The image has been used on multiple websites, how is it that some people believe that Wikmedia should be held to a higher standard then organizations such as the New York Times. Do you think every website that uses these images got individual permission from the photographer?7mike5000 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- News organisations can claim fair use, but Commons has a policy of not allowing fair use material to be hosted here. January (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- A notarised document from the copyright holder isn't necessary, but some proof of permission is. Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder describes what's required. One complication here is that these photos were apparently taken while Semendinger was on duty, so they are presumably works made for hire, and the copyright holder would be his employer at the time (the NYPD). --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The copyrighted images used by the NIST in their investigation all have a watermark stating copyright on the photo. The watermark was placed by the copyright holder e.g. Reuters. For those where the copyright holder did not place a watermark denoting copyright status the NIST did: such as these[14],[15].
- A notarised document from the copyright holder isn't necessary, but some proof of permission is. Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder describes what's required. One complication here is that these photos were apparently taken while Semendinger was on duty, so they are presumably works made for hire, and the copyright holder would be his employer at the time (the NYPD). --Avenue (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The NYPD did not give the images to the NIST Semindinger did. Although he was on duty the photographs belong to him and were not taken as part of his official duties. He was a pilot not an official photographer. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- In August 2009, NIST printed a notice in the Federal Register asking photographers for permission to make public images collected during the agency's investigation into the towers' collapse."[16]7mike5000 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we should read too much into the lack of an NIST watermark on this photo, particularly since Semendinger had already put a watermark on the photo.
- Similarly the NIST's notice in the Federal Register is very indirect evidence at best. They asked for permission to make photos public, and so far I haven't seen any confirmation that Semendinger gave permission. Making the photos public (i.e., publishing them) is also very different from releasing them into the public domain.
- I was too definite before about his photos being works for hire. It could be argued either way. He was definitely an NYPD employee, so the issue is whether or not the photos were created "within the scope of his employment". They were taken when he was on duty, using some NYPD equipment - the helicopter, and perhaps the digital camera. (He did take three rolls on his own Minolta camera, but apparently only gave his 245 digital images to the NIST.) http://digitaljournal.com/article/287382 A case could also be made that the images were made to serve his employer, even though he was not officially a photographer. He made a habit of taking cameras with him when flying, but I don't know whether the NYPD encouraged him to take photos or made use of his pictures from other flights. Anyway, the whole question is moot because we have no real evidence that either Semendinger or the NYPD released this photo into the public domain. It would only become important if we knew that one did, but not the other. --Avenue (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
How about sending a letter with a Wikimedia letterhead in a Wikimedia envelope to Greg Semendinger asking to clarify the status of the images? I think if was going to try and profit off the pictures he would have done so; it's been 11 years already. His address is listed. I could also possibly to go to Wantagh and try to ask him in person. I would be willing to bet he would be amenable to the idea of using at least the twelve images published by ABC.
There is a paucity of public domain images of the September 11, attacks, because most people think nothing of profiting off the death and misery of others. So personally I think it's worth the effort to clarify the status of the images in a professional manner viz. a professionally worded letter on official stationary stating the non-profit world-wide use, and the educational value of the images. 7mike5000 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As Avenue as carefully pointed out, including a citation, FOIA materials clearly retain copyright. The government is permitted to release them as a fair use, but that does not qualify them for Commons. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The map used for this is – as far as I understand Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Turkey – probably unfree (or if it is free, this is not indicated properly). I suggest to use a US-american map instead, since they are in the public domain. For example, a printout of File:Baltimore-Washington TAC 82.png or File:CH-24 WAC 41 North.png could do the trick. El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The chart I used is a UK CAA publication. It is copyrighted but I am not so sure if it is a breach of cr to use a fraction of it for demonstration purposes. If it gets deleted I can use the ones you found, thanks.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Please use a free map. -- Common Good (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dthibault as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Account hacked INeverCry 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. Out of project scope. -- Common Good (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - not usable because of glare INeverCry 04:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possibly out of scope INeverCry 04:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 05:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Image in .png rather than .svg like the other ones. Kusurija ask me to do some correction, I convert it in vectorial drawing. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - File:Wuxing cs.svg has been uploaded and this version is unused. We have no reason to keep this version. --whym (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This logo is changed by the organization Malikfaadi (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Possibly out of scope INeverCry 04:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - 1996 publication - also possibly out of scope INeverCry 04:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Question What is the specific problem with this file? -Pete F (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- See the link. This is a sculpture in Argentina. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No Freedom of Panorama in Argentina. --ZooFari 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the statue is out of copyright: the sculptor died in 1925. Óðinn (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Source? Please add such info to the description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the description. It says Victor de Pol (1865-1925) (statue). Additional sources: in the museum webpage it says the author of the statue is Victor de Pol. Additionally, it was already undeleted because of this. Patricio (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, good, but it should also be added to the other two images of this sculpture to prevent future DRs. FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the description. It says Victor de Pol (1865-1925) (statue). Additional sources: in the museum webpage it says the author of the statue is Victor de Pol. Additionally, it was already undeleted because of this. Patricio (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Source? Please add such info to the description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 01:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ganblues22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 04:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. Out of scope. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. I deleted a few of them but a few users protested. So putting these through a DR. Comment from the users pasted below.
Vandalism- too fast use to be copyvio actions
Hi. Please, stop deleting photos without discussion. At least inform me about your desire to delete something from Ukraine before doing. And restore please all photos you delete in Lviv - as you might know Lviv was polish before 1939 and all buildings built before this date are free according to Polish law. --A1 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Well - regarding the pictures which were assumed to be copyvio due to no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and showing buildings made by Polish architects before II World War - the case is not that obvious and IMHO should be carefully discussed - maybe even with help of professional lawyer.
I don't know anything about current Ukrainian law - but if we assume that
- Lviv was Polish before II world war
- the architect was Polish citizen
The applicable copyright law for architectural work is rather Polish than Ukrainian.
Actually the buildings are on Ukrainian soil - but the copyright is not about physical objects but about the creative work of architect, so in fact it doesn't matter where the physical object is actually located to decide which law is applicable.
Regarding Polish copyright law - copyright expires after 70 years after the death of the author - but except the case where it was a work for hire with transfer of copyright to the employer. In case of transfer of copyright of work for hire the copyright expires after 70 years of first publication of the work. In case of architectural works - the publication means to built a building as it can be seen by general public from the road. Architects are usually working for hire and they usually transfer copyright to the owner of the building. Overall - I think it is not very probable that the architectural works of Polish architects made before II World War are actually still copyrightable, and even if they are - as Polish law has a freedom of panorama and applicable law is rather Polish than Ukrainian - there is still no reason to delete the pictures... I would suggest to undelete the pictures and discuss the issue as it is not so obvious copyvio. Polimerek (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
.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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%D0%95%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0.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){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}
_4.jpg){kind=link}
_3.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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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){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}
Sreejith K (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sidenote: you should never speedy delete FoP photos. From my experience in Romania, about 5-10% of them can be kept as De minimis or for other reasons. Please go through AfD and notify the uploader to give him at least a chance to expain the uploads.--Strainu (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Answer (Ukrainian)
[edit]Доброго дня усім. Я вже не перший рік займаюсь з'ясуванням авторства будівель у Львові, маю майже усю доступну літературу на цю тему. У рамках WLM я завантажив понад 1 тис. файлів, зробивши перед цим аналіз авторства і дат побудови усіх цих споруд (!). Я завантажив лише:
- споруди, автори яких померли 70 років тому, або давніше;
- споруди, збудовані понад 70 років тому, при цьому дата смерті авторів невідома (а останні згадки про авторів трапились не менш ніж 70 років тому);
- споруди, збудовані понад 70 років тому (до 1942), автори яких невідомі.
Після 30 вересня я виконав повторну (!) перевірку усіх цих понад 1 тис. файлів і виявив серед них близько 70, де зображені маловідомі споруди І. Багенського (помер 1967), Л. Карасінського (помер 1952), Т. Врубеля (помер 1974), Є. Весоловського (помер 1950). Я номінував їх усіх на швидке вилучення і Sreejithk2000 вилучив (за виключенням 7 файлів, які він чомусь не вилучив і додав уже до цього абсурдного DR). Те що залишилось після моїх перевірок - заледве хтось зможе оскаржити.
Сьогодні я бачу, що на вилучення номіновано ще 735 (!) файлів. Я вже двічі їх перевіряв - вони усі вільні. Ви хоч би глянули що номінуєте - серед зображень є маса споруд 17-19 століть...
Не знаю, який має бути алгоритм дій при одночасній номінації 735 файлів. Можу лише деталізувати опис кожного файлу українською мовою (нажаль англійської не знаю). Але я зроблю це лише тоді, якщо номінатор пообіцяє проаналізувати кожне (!) описання.
Якщо файли усе ж залишать, особисто прошу номінатора - приберіть усі 735 повідомлень {{delete|reason}} із файлів. Робіть як хочете - ботом чи вручну. Я цієї дурної роботи робити не буду.
Вибачте, що пишу з помилками. Англійської не знаю і користуюсь автоперекладачем.
-- P. S. А чому лише 735 файлів? Я вантажу файли з 2010 року - всього понад 2,5 тис. Може давайте усі номінуємо? Буде весело.--Сергій (обг.) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Answer (English)
[edit]Hi everyone. I am making researches on the authorship of buildings in Lviv for a few years. I have almost all available literature on this topic. During WLM I uploaded over 1 thousand files. I made analysis of authorship and dates of construction of all (!) of them. I uploaded only:
- buildings, whose authors have died 70 years ago, or before;
- buildings, built over 70 years ago, with authors' date of death unknown (and the last mention of the authors happened no less than 70 years ago);
- Buildings, built over 70 years ago (before 1942), whose authors are unknown.
After 30 September, I performed a second (!) check with literature these more than 1 thousand files and found near 70 images, which shows the buildings of I. Bagenskyi (died 1967), L. Karasiński (died 1952), T. Wróbel (died 1974), J. Wesolowski (died 1950). I nominated for speedy deletion and Sreejithk2000 deleted (with the exception of seven files that for some reason he kept and added to this absurd DR). The remaining files were checked so that hardly anyone will be able to accuse.
Today I see nomination to deletion of another 735 (!) files. I've double checked them - they are all free. Have you looked at the nominated files? Have you read the descriptions??? A lot of them were built in 17-19 centuries...
I do not know correct algorithm of actions with simultaneous nomination of 735 files. I can only detalise descriptions of each file in Ukrainian (unfortunately I do not know English). But I'll do it only if the nominator promises to analyze all (!) descriptions.
If the files will be kept, than I personally ask nominator - remove all 735 {{delete|reason}} from files. Do it however you want - by bot or manually. I will not do such a stupid work.
Sorry for my mistakes. I do not know English and mostly use machine translator.
- P. S. I do not understand - why only 735 files? I upload files from 2010 - just over 2.5 thousand. Nominate them all. It will be fun.--Сергій (обг.) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (corrected by NickK (talk))
- Так а з Весоловським які проблеми? Якщо він помер 1950, буде вільним і по {{PD-Polish}}, і по {{PD-Ukraine}}.Anatoliy (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with Sreejith that the copyright on buildings is usually transferred to the owner, and most architectural firms are smart enough to know that the copyright lasts longer if they leave it in the name of the designers, with only a license to the firm and to the builder, so it is my opinion that any of these designed by architects who died after 1942 are still under copyright. If more than one architect worked on the design, then the longest lived is the one that counts.
- I Could argue this either way, and I started to present both arguments here. However, I think the better of them is as follows: Delete When a sculpture created by, say, Alexander Calder, moves from the USA (no FOP) where it was created to Germany (broad FOP), we use that exception to allow images to be kept on Commons. In the other direction, we do not keep images of sculptures that were created in countries with FOP that are on display in non-FOP countries, see Commons:Deletion requests/UN Art Collection. Our rule on FOP is consistently that it is the law where the work is located that is applicable. I think that reasoning applies whether the work was physically moved from country to country or if the work changed countries from a border change. Thus, while I would argue that Polish law might determine the length of the copyright, Ukrainian law determines that there is no applicable FOP. I'm going to ask Carl Lindberg to comment. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can you comment my arguments?--Сергій (обг.) 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why? I do not understand. The subject of copyright is architectural work - not the building as such. The work was made by Polish citizen at the time where Lviv was part of Republic of Poland. So the only applicable law which protects the work is Polish. Ukrainan law can only protect the work because Poland and Ukraine are both signatores of Berne Convention and WIPO treaty, but it means that the work is protected only to the level of protection of the country of origin. (see article 5 of Berne Convention). The country of origin of the architectural work is Second Republic of Poland. At the time when buildings were erected there was no independent Republic of Ukraine at all, so these works were never protected by Ukrainan copyright law. This is completely different legal situation than in case of Germany or France, where there were shifts of borders but both countries existed and had their own copyright law. Polimerek (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can you comment my arguments?--Сергій (обг.) 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I Could argue this either way, and I started to present both arguments here. However, I think the better of them is as follows:
- I find this nomination a good example of copyright paranoia. Aeou is an experienced user who is probably the only person in Ukraine who respects FOP laws (Ukrainian laws do not clearly allow to reproduce buildings in photographic form, but there were no known cases when such reproduction was forbidden). He is known to upload images only with complete attribution, including architect's name and lifetime (if known). According to his statement, he made some research and found out that some buildings may violate FOP policy and nominated photos of these buildings for deletion himself. However this nomination is just terrible: I will cite just few examples where FOP is completely irrelevant:
- File:Бічний портал Королівського арсеналу у Львові.jpg (architect uk:Павло Ґродзицький died in 1645)
- File:Оборонна стіна монастиря св. Онуфрія (46-101-3004).jpg (medieval defensive wall, no architect can by found)
- File:32 Brativ Rohatyntsiv Street, Lviv (01).jpg (built in the 15th century, rebuilt in 1908)
- File:Дзвіниця монастиря бернардинців.jpg (built in 1734, in order to violate PD-70 architect must have lived some 230 years)
- File:Basilian monastery of St. Onuphrius (02).jpg (built in 1820 by architect Franz Trescher, who is Austrian and is known to marry in 1783. In order to survive up to 1943 in order to violate PD-70 of Austria, he must have lived at least 175 years)
- File:Колодязь на Коперника (1).jpg (if you click on the monument description you will see that this is a medieval monument)
- File:Колодязь на Коперника (лев зі старої ратуші, 1).jpg (the name of the file says that this lion comes from the building of old City Hall, destroyed by fire in 1826. According to this article this sculpture dates from 1610s)
- File:2 Soborna Square, Lviv.jpg (architect died in 1925)
- File:Церква, Микуличин (02).jpg (built in 1868 by local architect Ya. Chaykovetsky. This is the only work of this architect, his biography is unknown)
- File:Main rail terminal in Lviv (6).jpg (architect uk:Владислав Садловський died in 1940, numerous photos exist on Commons)
- File:Бічний фасад головного корпусу Львівської політехніки.jpg (architect en:Juljan Oktawjan Zacharjewicz died in 1898)
- File:Zamoyski Palace, Lviv (14).jpg (architect uk:Вільгельм Шмідт worked since 1835, in order to violate PD-70 of Austria he must have lived over 130 years)
- and so on. This is not the case of difference between Polish and Ukrainian laws, this is the case of a dangerously inaccurate nomination. As it is completely impossible to check all these files, I ask to speedy keep all these images and do not allow similar mass nominations as harmful, particularly for WLM in Ukraine (as Aeou is currently the main candidate for WLM prises, but in case these photos will be deleted, he will not have any WLM photos anymore. If you think that some images are subject to FOP, please open separate nominations citing architect's name and his year of death, or the date of construction, but do not make a mass deletion of images that do not violate any rule or law — NickK (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This batch request is closed. Many Aeou's images are good. Please nominate each problem building or each problem architector in separate DRs. Anatoliy (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Olavsdenkmal-Sarpsborg.jpg.jpg
- File:Borregaard-Monument Sarpsborg (1).jpg
- File:Borregaard-Monument Sarpsborg (2).jpg
- File:Denkmal der Generationen-Sarpsborg.jpg
- File:Fredrik II.in Fredrikstad.JPG
- File:Rathausbrunnen-Sarpsborg.jpg
- File:Sarpsborg, Hafslund Hovedgård (Herrenhaus).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
As per Commons:FOP#Norway, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarpsborg Flößerdenkmal1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarpsborg Flößerdenkmal2.jpg, FOP isn't ok for sculptures in Norway. --Blond (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChikiRojas12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF (uploader perfil: 6 uploads = 3x copyvio, 1 unsourced)
Gunnex (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
unused user page images, out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Likely to be processed pornographic images. No evidence that source images were licensed under free licenses.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Pornographic pics with some Photoshop filters applied. Not educational at all. Fma12 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete A derivative work. Without some evidence to the contrary, it is likely a copy-vio. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio.--Fanghong (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Sharifinaim31loko.jpg
- File:59a538415f.jpg
- File:Sharifinaim33.JPG
- File:SharifiNaim.JPG
- File:Sharifi.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vanilsonrodriguesdemedeiros (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristian MH (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Backstage2012 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Presentatrice Radio Cuore Tour Alina Di Mattia.jpg
- File:ALINA DI MATTIA.jpg
- File:Alina Di Mattia 2.jpg
- File:Mino Reitano, Alina Di Mattia e Fausto Leali.jpg
- File:Alina Di Mattia e Fausto Leali.jpg
- File:Alina Di Mattia e Noa.jpg
- File:Alina Di Mattia e Gianni Bella.jpg
- File:Marco Armani e Alina Di Mattia.jpg
- File:Alina Di Mattia e Amato Scarpellino.jpg
- File:Morgan e Alina Di Mattia.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Real Club Deportivo Motril (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Totyloyola11
[edit]- File:Darlyn natali loyola.jpg
- File:Darlyn loyola.jpg
- File:Darlyn Loyola.jpg
- File:German garmendia.jpg
Out of scope, unused personal images. --Jespinos (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kylepanganiban 1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All other images by this user turned out to be copyvios (except two mistagged logos), so it is likely that these two also are copyvios, although I can't find them anywhere. Also relevant for one of the images is that there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines.
Stefan4 (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in US for copyrighted signs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep What's copyrightable about this sign? If we considered this as a logo, it wouldn't be original enough to class as non-text. I doubt that a simple menu like this could qualify under database right, especially not in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would be so bold and consider the photos and the logo de minimis and since I don't consider the rest of the sign not original enough I would keep the image. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am saying that the photos are problematic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I think this is past the USA TOO. While a simple price list would not have a copyright, this has a specific layout and five photos. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author. Hence, we cannot prove, if he died 70+ years ago. Leyo 07:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- John Seymour Turnbull (Sydney, Ausztrália, 1895. - †Chugnes közelében, Franciaország,1918. június 17.)Ha a fotográfus 0 éves volt John halálakor, akkor is most lenne 94 éves. Sajnos User:OgreBot 2 rendszeresen törli az adatokat. Tambo (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- This cleanup was OK, because e.g. the uploader to hu.wikipedia is not the author.
- Yes, the person on the picture died in 1918. The relevant information, however, is the year of death of the author (photographer). It is not unlikely that he died after 1942 (less than 70 years ago). --Leyo 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author or the year of creation. Hence, we cannot prove, if the license is applicable. Leyo 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kriza János (Nagyajta, 1811. június 28. – Kolozsvár, 1875. március 26.) Akiről fotózták 137 éve meghalt. Lehet, hogy a szerző már több mint 70 éve halott. Sajnos User:OgreBot 2 rendszeresen törli az adatokat. Tambo (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Subject died 1875. We generally use 1880 as the "safe" date in countries that are 70 years pma. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author or the year of creation. Hence, we cannot prove, if the license is applicable. Leyo 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Király Színház, 1904. Medgyaszay Vilma (Iluska), Fedák Sári (Kukorica Jancsi). A kép 108 éve készült. Tambo (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No information on the author or the year of creation. Hence, we cannot prove, if the license is applicable. Leyo 08:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Latabár Endre (Kiskunhalas, 1811. november 16. – Miskolc, 1873. július 10.). Latabár 139 éve elhunyt. Tambo (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well yes that's good to know, Endre Latabar died 139 years ago. But as far as I know, the photo could still be copyrighted if it is a scan of a book. That's why it would be good if you state the source.--Stanzilla (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Subject died 1873. We generally use 1880 as the "safe" date in countries that are 70 years pma. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Romania. Architect Petre Antonescu (1873-1965). 128.250.5.245 07:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 03:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Romania. Architect Petre Antonescu (1873-1965). Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arcul de Triumf 2009-7.JPG PierreSelim (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Note that while this is not the same image as the previous deletion of the same name, the same rule applies. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably the same unfree work of architecture as those of deleted image files under the same name. If possible, the file name needs to be locked (w:en:WP:SALT) as long as commercial FoP is not allowed in Romania. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
File using japanese transcription in latin characters rather than chinese one. Also, image in .png rather than .svg like the other ones Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Transcription in latin from japanese is needed to distinguish from chinese transcription, because it is in use as explanation for japanese language: japanese 漢字 「かんじ」, not only for [hànzì]. Thank you, if leave it, or transform it to .svg format. Thanks in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Using latin transcription of japanese pronunciation is nonsense for chinese tradition : japanese tradition (godai) is, basically, the greco-roman one (earth, fire, water, wind and sky/ether) which is nearly a world-wide one. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 18:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - while normally it makes sense to transcribe this in Chinese pinyin, I see this figure has a use at its current state. While it is Chinese origin, Wu Xing is adapted to Japan as 五行 (Gogyō). When explaining its adaptation in Japan, using Japanese transcriptions would be appropriate. That said, adding a navigation to (newly uploaded) File:Wuxing cs.svg would be good to avoid users confusion. --whym (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (re-signed)
Kept: Per discussion, also noting that this is a COM:SCOPE argument and that the image is in use at a Wikipedia, making it automatically within scope. Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fotograaf: Keystone
- < 1280×860px, poor quality
http://visualrian.ru/en/site/gallery/#100938/context[lightbox]=2699 — RIA Novosti:
- Author: RIA Novosti
- 3000×2421px, normal quality
The cited statement speaks only of images that were made by photographers working for their predecessor and that others have been filtered out -- apparently this should have been filtered but was not. Here is analogous to that. NBS (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
See also this discussion (in Russian). NBS (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This picture doesn't look like from a newspaper. It looks like a self-typed document instead. There is no reliable source at all. Bsmd (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, Commons doesn't judge those issues Jcb (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The license tag used reads "I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain", but unless the uploader was of legal working age in 1944 and was a writer for both the Mainichi Shinpo and Keijo Nippo at the same time, that is not possible. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Architect died in 1956, no-FOP in Belgium M0tty (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - UNESCO cultural heritage. Also, I'd like to see any descendants of this Austrian architect making any claims on the basis of a supposed Belgian "FOP law". Already questionable for Belgium; even more questionable when it concerns Austrians that certainly have no concept of this FOP. So this nomination is clearly jumping to conclusion rather prematurely without any solid legal basis or precedent. --LimoWreck (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - UNESCO cultural heritage. Amandajm (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Austria permits FoP so image is valid in source country of the architect, Belgian FoP restriction are irrelevant. Denniss (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I think the passport of the architect doesn't realy matter for FOP cases of buildings, but the location of the building. This one was designed by an Austrian architect (with FOP) but is located in Belgium (without FOP). The decision of the pevious DR does not realy look OK for me. JuTa 23:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I agree : no FOP in Belgium, were is this building. If heirs of the architect want this picture with free licence, we need explicit message : Delete ----MGuf (d) 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Let's end this and store this picture hidden until 2026 with the rest of the Belgian pictures. No FOP in Belgium. What matters most is to have at least one picture on the wiki page of this UNESCO building and not where it is stored.
- Could a good soul think how to change this deletion process (easy) to upload back a picture under fair use to wikis (cumbersome)? I already moved once this picture back to En Wiki under fair use. It was deleted here [17]. Can someone restore this deleted picture on En wiki? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Our entry for FOP in Belgium clearly states that FOP only becomes irrelevant 70 years after the author's death. This architect died in 1956, so the FOP restriction for Belgium, where the building is, should apply. This is certainly unfortunate with such a widely used image, but policy is what it is. INeverCry 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Until it is proven that an Unesco (or any other national) world heritage label does not lift the FOP restriction as this would be completely ridiculous. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stoclet_Palace_Hoffmann_Brussels_1911.jpg){kind=link}
Comment I have started a meta-discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#FoP based on location of building or nationality of architect?. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)- Delete The country of origin of an architectural work is the country where the work is permanently located, not the country of citizenship of the architect. One could argue what to do if the camera is in one country but the building is in another country (possible in e.g. nl:Baarle-Nassau/nl:Baarle-Hertog), but in this case, the camera appears to have been in the same country as the building, so the country of origin is clearly Belgium. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Simply idiotic to delete pictures on the basis of 'no freedom of panorama'. Especially since the architect is Austrian. Keep --__ wɘster 17:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : clear copyright violation. UNESCO does not change anything. BrightRaven (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Belgium, unfortunately. –sumone10154(talk) 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Our clear policy is that the location of the work is what matters. See, for example, Category:Alexander Calder, which shows sculpture made in the USA by an American sculptor, but located in countries with FOP for sculpture. The reverse is also our policy -- works mode in a country with FOP but located in the USA, are deleted.
- I think that several of the comments above wholly misunderstand FOP. Copyright applies everywhere (with a few exceptions, none of which are in Europe). FOP is an exception to the rule that copyrighted works may not be reproduced. Therefore FOP is not in any sense the problem here -- the problem is that the work is copyrighted. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}