Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![112 File:Kenny ngvery generic descriptive words (e.g. ".jpg](#File:Kenny_ngvery_generic_descriptive_words_(e.g._".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
LA imagen esta en restauracion, subire una con mejor calidad Chegian (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Test nomination. Files do not need to be deleted to be replaced by higher quality versions (I explained at his talk page) Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This is apparently an attempt to use a picture to vandalize the English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janet_Street-Porter&diff=prev&oldid=516283062) by satirizing a subject. No source for the upload. Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 17:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User admits it's a copyvio - see User talk:Mattbuck#Deletion_request_for_two_images. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope IMO - either personal artwork or a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User admits it's a copyvio - see User talk:Mattbuck#Deletion_request_for_two_images. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
probably a copyvio like all other uploads by this user NNW (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Image originally from Getty Tabercil (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
copyright status unknown Surrey74 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrights.See [1].Same image.--Los688 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a copyvio to me too. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how this can be PD Syria when it was made in Russia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete According to the Summary, the picture was taken in 1981. But in order to be public domain, it would have be taken or offered to the public before 1954. Therefore, it is not in the public domain, and thus is a copy-vio and should be deleted. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
No indication this was first published in Syria, FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete According to the Summary, the picture was taken in 1987. But in order to be public domain, it would have be taken or offered to the public before 1954. Therefore, it is not in the public domain, and thus is a copy-vio and should be deleted. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the photographer. Photo uploaded in this small size to flickr in August 2011 ([2]), was at http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/03/11/hovannisian-to-present-illustrated-lecture-at-metro-west-church/ in same size already in March 2011 and is created even earlier. File was taken from the flickr user from another website. A look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/64037455@N06 clearly shows that this is just someone collecting random content but not someone making photos at events. --Martin H. (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Considering that much of the flickr user's content is obviously not created by him (or her; too much variation), it is likely that the picture was taken by someone else and therefore it may not be licensed properly. The fact it was taken in 2009, and appeared in an online newspaper article months before being upload to flickr does support the theory that the user is not the photographer. Without some evidence to the contrary, any evidence, I must agree it is a copy-vio. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Redundant. There are two other, larger, versions of this picture. This looks oversharpened and has too much color correction. This picture adds nothing substantial. The other versions are:
Rsberzerker (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph of a copyrighted book cover. Not de minimis. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Image has no online flickr source. It should be deleted within a week Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment The picture has taken from this page.--Javierito92 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The license on the picture at upload has a non-Commercial and no-derivative use restriction on it. So, it cannot be used on Wikicommons. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, out of scope Motopark (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Like other image files from this uploader which have already been deleted, this image appears to be a copyright violation of a book cover. KDS444 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this appears to be the same file the user uploaded previously with fewer capital letters in the title which was also deleted as a copyright violation (see user's talk page).KDS444 (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- For book cover see here:http://www.esenshop.com/detail.aspx?id=61072
- Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a Copyright violation of a book cover, as per other images by this user. KDS444 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- For book cover see here: http://www.rakunkitap.com/index.php/capulcu.html KDS444 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
No sirve para ningún artículo. Esto no es facebook Laura Fiorucci (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Imagen personal, esto no es facebook Laura Fiorucci (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Multitítere en Wikipedia en español que piensa que esto es una red social Laura Fiorucci (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Esto no es una red social Laura Fiorucci (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo... -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo... -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
personal photo.. out of scope! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unknown author without any proof, that they died before 1942. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 07:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete If it truly is a movie poster, then it's a copyvio. In any case, it's promo, so therefore out of scope.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Delfort as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Official logo of the team: http://www.bastiacalcio.it/.
Converted by me to DR, as logo probably too simple and generic to be copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Delfort as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Official site of the football team: http://www.cittadimessina.com/site/
Converted by me to DR, as logo probably too simple and generic to be copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Delfort as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Official logo of the team: http://www.fcverbanocalcio.it.
Converted by me to DR, as logo probably too simple and generic to be copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poster of a movie, and it's coptrights are belong to the producer. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The palace in the background was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. However, we might discuss whether it could go per de minimis.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The difference between this and the Louvre pyramid is that the surroundings of the Louvre pyramid are actually encyclopedic. Either it's a significant part of the picture, in which case DM does not apply, or it's just a low-res picture of random trees with a tiny building in the background, which makes it out of scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This palace was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. However, we might discuss whether such an extreme detail as in this image is copyrightable (on behalf of the architect) at all. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep Nothing copyrightable about such shapes. There's not enough of the building to show any creativity on behalf of the architect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry, but the palace was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. -- Sreejith K (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry, but the palace was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. -- Sreejith K (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry, but the palace was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. -- Sreejith K (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry, but the palace was completed in 1951, its architects have been dead for less than 70 years, and Italy has no FOP exemption. -- Sreejith K (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work", but at the same time author said to be "unknown", though EXIF data provide an author name. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not my own work, I own the photo but do not know who made it. Menke (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- O.k., but what do you actually have, a print of the photo, a film negative or a film positive? And why do the EXIF data say "Photographer = J.A.K. Boerma"? Who is Mr. Boerma? If that is your real name, you do not need to disclose it here, but then you should remove it from the EXIF, as you are not the photographer, even if you produced the reproduction. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Rapsar (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Photo is bad, and I regret uploading it. Will find a better one instead. Kjehol (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think the photo is bad, but Author or uploader request deletion is a valid deletion reason per Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. --Rsberzerker (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Late 1930s shot, unknown photographer, cannot be assumed as PD. A.Savin 10:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The license is wrong; CC-0 is only for works where the author put them under the CC-0 license. It's 3D and carefully staged, so it's not inherently PD, and Smithsonian works are generally considered copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
i'll upload one with a better filename: levaansukraasi_reaktsioon.png V6rukael (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I guess your problem was solved by a filemove. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
no FOP in France NNW (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Licenses of Stepmap.de are incompatible to the licenses required at Commons, see http://www.stepmap.de/hilfe/wie-darf-ich-die-karten-nutzen. You have to pay if you want to use a Stepmap.de based map in a commercial way NNW (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 13:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The text, based on the picture name, is likely ancient buddhist, long out of copyright. Perhaps someone who can read it could weigh in. --Rsberzerker (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless, the English translation is copyrighted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poor resolution. Looks like a video screenshot. Sreejith K (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Poor resolution. Looks like a video screenshot. Sreejith K (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Very bad quality photography BluesyPete (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Text could be copyrighted Sreejith K (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Text could be copyrighted Sreejith K (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work. The image is from 1960, so it is not in Public Domain. Sreejith K (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
copyright status unknown Surrey74 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong copyright MrsSoediv (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Kartoffel07 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of EXIF data leads me to also believe Mac460 is not the copyright holder of this work. --Rsberzerker (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Despite his slapping a CC license on it, he then writes: "This is a photo of Amar Kanwal (a) all rights respective to the owners property and will not be used without the respected owners approval." Completely incompatible with our basic requirements on Commons. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only document. Will be much more useful in wiki-markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no source information or proof that the photograph is in public domain. The subject of the photo died in 1917, so it's entirely possible that the photographer has not been dead for 70 years as claimed. Diannaa (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- The file is a derivative work of en:File:Eleonoreofbulgaria.JPG, which is a scan of an old postcard, which is pre-1923 and therefore in the public domain. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The original file referenced above is clearly in the public domain. It is likely, given the poor quality of the shot, that the nominated file is also published prior to 1923 and also in the public domain. If not, then IMHO, it also lacks the creativity to qualify for copyright portection. --Rsberzerker (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private file storage. Not used. Also no source of graphics. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect license; unused file; subject inadequately identified. Diannaa (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
![17:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/06#c-Diannaa-2012-10-06T17:41:00.000Z-File:Kenny_ngvery_generic_descriptive_words_(e.g._".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
![01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/06#c-INeverCry-2012-10-13T01:04:00.000Z-File:Kenny_ngvery_generic_descriptive_words_(e.g._".jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Persuant to this DR. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Wrong license; not PD-ineligible. No evidence of permission for any other license. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a school. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs a valid evidence for "PD-EU-no author disclosure". By now there is only a claim woithout any detailed information High Contrast (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikley own work, found on several websites Funfood ␌ 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Found [3] here at higher res. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, out of project scope as Embrocio. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks a bit dubious to me, fairly low res, no camera metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
File with this name deleted less than a month ago, but for some reason I can't see it in the log to see whether it's the same image. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept It is another image with metadatas, it seems all ok --Ezarateesteban 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Own work looks dubious to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Copyvio}}: non-free Internet image just like the user's only other upload. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Malpass93 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant copyright violation. Fma12 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Basvb (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio como dice Jyta. El soporte de la fotografía original es película, no digital y forma parte de un reportaje de las fiestas de San Roke de Portugalete realizado por el Taller de Imagen MARGEN. 85.85.118.3 19:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Tiendo a estar de acuerdo con el motivo por el que se solicita el borrado en tanto que la resolución de la imagen es bastante pobre así como que no acompañan datos exif a la imagen. En aplicación de los principios de precaución curso el borrado de la imagen. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg (copy of reduced size and rotated some degrees) Robby (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Waiting for CommonsDelinker for the replace. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: When exact duplicates, file deletions can be requested by use of {{duplicate}} — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
There are no freedom of panorama exemptions in France. ■ MMXX talk 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- This picture is from Figueres (Spain) - and not from France. --Gordito1869 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the information, however, it's still a derivative work of a non-free work and should be deleted. ■ MMXX talk 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nein, das Plakat hängt im öffentlichen Raum neben der Straße (völlig klar erkennbar) und darf imho regelkonform eingestellt werden (sorry, I`m a german - and I speak and write german). --Gordito1869 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the information, however, it's still a derivative work of a non-free work and should be deleted. ■ MMXX talk 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This work is permanently located; I`ve seen it on this (same) place for many, many years. - I`ve seen the same work permanetly located (!) in Roses (Spain) round about for 20-years. --Gordito1869 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OK, then, I will defer to the expert on this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Gordito1869. Yann (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Seem like a personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. INeverCry 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks dubious to me - low res, no metadata, possibly a vidcap? Psychadelic though. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The photo is of the band performing a live show with there live video projections, thats why it looks like a video clip.
Deleted: copyvio --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We do in fact accept it for any other area; in fact, the only area where such scrutiny is given is with nudity/sex. See Category:Grass; is that any less useful? Handcuffed (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, the duplicates there aren't any less useful. The difference though is that people upload nude photos indiscriminately and with no thought for the Commons scope as a political/social statement, while the same cannot be said for almost any other category of images. The reason there is so much more scrutiny on nudity than on other things here at DR is that there is so much less scrutiny on the part of some uploaders. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique image, useful display of naturism and nudity and specifically absence of tan line dimensions and freedom of expression. -- Cirt (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), grass argument is not valid (please feel free to start DR there) and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No !vote.Leaning towards Keep now that Yikrazuul tried to delete my comment.
- Reinserted: (this is probably COM:PORN, and indiscriminate Flickr-uploading), and at least Cirt gives varying arguments from file to file and doesn't simply copy and paste ridiculous misspelled !votes, "arugments", pleeeease... 217.251.152.81 07:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now start respecting talk rules and don't suppress opinions you don't like. Your !vote is no better than anyone else's, get used to it.
- If you have anything valid to say about my comment, for example why you think it's invalid, then write your contribution already but don't vandalize mine.
- FWIW, 217.251.152.48 10:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Per Norm, stop trying to censor Commons. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus appears to be emerging for keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, interesting representation of naturism, nudity, and other related topics. Also helpful to illustrate sun exposure and representative tan line dimensions. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Per Norm, stop trying to censor Commons.
- for the record the picture grosses me out, but that’s no real reason to delete.
- How is this ”porn” ?
- the woman in the background, is fairly identifiable, that might be a problem ! / reason for deletion. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope, no real reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good example of personal grooming, body grooming, and hair removal. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Do we have a nudity in humour category? We should do IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We do in fact accept it for any other area; in fact, the only area where such scrutiny is given is with nudity/sex. See Category:Grass; is that any less useful? Handcuffed (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, the duplicates there aren't any more useful. The difference though is that people upload nude photos indiscriminately and with no thought for the Commons scope as a political/social statement, while the same cannot be said for almost any other category of images. The reason there is so much more scrutiny on nudity than on other things here at DR is that there is so much less scrutiny on the part of some uploaders. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), in addition, Handcuffed is right about this grass problem, BUT we are talking now about this image. If Handcuffed is starting DR about those useless grass-pictures, I will support him. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique image, good example of specific artwork display on pubic symphysis area. -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Per Norm, stop trying to censor Commons.
- for the record the picture grosses me out, but that’s no real reason to delete.
- the woman in the background in the blue and white striped dress is fairly identifiable, that might be a problem !! / reason for deletion. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to censor Commons. There's a huge difference between "get rid of all the nudity" and "get rid of the redundant nudity images that fall outside of the scope and was uploaded by a user that makes mass uploads as a social statement". If the uploader put even a modicum of effort into choosing good, useful images instead of uploading every nudity image they could find, I wouldn't be placing a small number of his uploads up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's the big problem? I think your time could be better spent trying to upload "useful" nudity images instead of trying to get the "non-useful" ones deleted. My only concern with these images is personality rights. I do agree, however, that people shouldn't be uploading too many images that look like vacation pictures. Handcuffed (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to censor Commons. There's a huge difference between "get rid of all the nudity" and "get rid of the redundant nudity images that fall outside of the scope and was uploaded by a user that makes mass uploads as a social statement". If the uploader put even a modicum of effort into choosing good, useful images instead of uploading every nudity image they could find, I wouldn't be placing a small number of his uploads up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No particular reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We do in fact accept it for any other area; in fact, the only area where such scrutiny is given is with nudity/sex. See Category:Grass; is that any less useful? Handcuffed (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, the duplicates there aren't any less useful. The difference though is that people upload nude photos indiscriminately and with no thought for the Commons scope as a political/social statement, while the same cannot be said for almost any other category of images. The reason there is so much more scrutiny on nudity than on other things here at DR is that there is so much less scrutiny on the part of some uploaders. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom, in addition, Handcuffed is right about this grass problem, BUT we are talking now about this image. If Handcuffed is starting DR about those useless grass-pictures, I will support him. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique image, high resolution, good quality picture, depicts anatomy and attire in specific stylistic presentation. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see how this falls out of scope. Regarding the fact that we already have a picture of an ass, compare with the thousands of pictures of red cars. --Momotaro (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Per Norm, stop trying to censor Commons. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope, moderate quality, consensus appears to be to keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
it's too big Trenta5mm (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Being too big is not a valid reason for deletion. However, the "own work" claim is dubious. The description says something about a person who lived from 1890 to 1954; can someone who knows Italian translate? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible non-free model, information about model's author is needed. see COM:CB#3D art (sculptures etc.) ■ MMXX talk 17:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Cartoon Network's logo. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273937_100001181897187_2998413_n.jpg But it might be a picture that is old enough to be in the public domain. Can't yet find the date at which this picture was taken. Vera (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Refer to Ashraf Ali Thanwi, the person died in 1943. Regardless of when the picture was taken, this person died in 1943.Hence it is in public domain in India/Pakistan/USA/ Most countries of the world. A similar picture can be found on the pages of the blog: http://www.salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com
Kept: per the unsigned SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a undated painting, not a photo. This is no evidence that this is created pre-1952 Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- You'll obviously take photos during the lifespan of a person. The person died in 1943. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC).
- Yes, but I questioning if it is a photo at all. Colour photography was not in vogue pre-1950 in India. We hardly have any colour photographs of Gandhi or Nehru.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a drawing, not photo, ought to be deleted unless the provenance is known and complies with our copyright policies. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Also so small that it is quite useless, and therefore out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work.
Converted by me to DR, as the image on the board might eventually be considered de minimis, as it is hardly viewable. - Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The copyvio image is the focus of the composition (as indicated by the description given by the uploader), and constitutes the main interest of the photograph which is the train station being built. Besides the sign, there's not much to see, and a blank sign without the construction image wouldn't provide much context. INeverCry 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
[4] Ravi Varma Press shut in 1980. No conclusive proof that PD-India (pre-1952) is fulfilled. No sign of Ravi Varma (like in all works of the artist e.g. File:Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg) indicating work pre-1906. This image should be deleted as per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Armbrust as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.rusarchives.ru/evants/exhibitions/atom-exp/9.shtml.
Converted by me to DR, as this still from a 1949 documentary from the USSR might merit some discussion and expert input. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No clear indication of release under license shown at source listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
photo floue Ralph Hammann (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good example of naturism, as well as hair removal and body grooming. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike other images that show nudism,(lifestyle, events, etc.), this does just look like somebody's personal photo. However, though I think Cirt's defense of these images may be a bit eccentric, referring to COM:PORN as though there were a ban on "pornographic" images on the Commons is plain wrong. I think we're suffering from the name and the assumption if you don't actually read the policy of what it might mean. --Simonxag (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR. MBisanz talk 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
COM:PORN LevandeMänniska (talk), 16:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and bad quality. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These flags weren't even adopted, what scope is there for this? Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Neustad
[edit]- File:Bernardo Neustadt en 1986.jpg (1986)
- File:Bernardo Neustadt en julio de 1976.JPG (1976)
- File:BernardoNeustadt.JPG (1975)
Those files became public doman in Argentina in 2011, 2001 and 2000. None of them was public domain in Argentina in the URAA date (1996), so they are not free in the US. See Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas 2 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Raúl Alfonsín. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Olimpoaurinegro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Basquet lnb olimpo.jpg
- File:Jorge Ledo.jpg
- File:Roberto Carminatti.jpg
- File:Entrada vieja olimpo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Olimpoaurinegro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Previously published (14.01.2013, but lower res) via http://pagina95.com/2013/01/14/olimpo-volvio-a-ganar-un-amistoso-en-mar-del-plata/ (© 2013 Copyright Página 95. TODOS los derechos reservados.) = http://pagina95.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/olimpo2-615x346.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ansat-Kazan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Ansat-2RC-1.jpg
- File:Helirussia-12.JPG
- File:Ansat-U-3.jpg
- File:Ansat-U-2.jpg
- File:Ansat-U-1.jpg
- File:Ansat-GMSU-3.JPG
- File:Ansat-GMSU-2.JPG
- File:Ansat-GMSU-1.JPG
- File:Poisk-1.jpg
- File:Trans-1.jpg
- File:VIP-1.jpg
- File:Pas-1.jpg
- File:Pozhar-1.jpg
- File:Med-1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Arezzo.png
- File:Presidentezelaya2007.png
- File:ConViniciocerezo1987.png
- File:Presidentelobianco1980.png
- File:Capitolium1970.png
- File:La familia 2005.png
- File:Colaboradores1968.png
- File:Mesa Redonda 1970.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement of some kind. No evidence of permission.
- File:Certified Ethical Hacker, Cochin, Kerala.jpg
- File:CEH COCHIN KERALA.JPG
- File:Autamntechnologies03.jpg
- File:Autamn-technologies.jpg
- File:Certified Ethical Hackers, Cochin, Kerala.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bernardo Velasco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Magaligrojas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mili9dejulio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chris Dennis Rosenberg. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 7..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 5..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 4..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 3..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 2..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg 1..jpg
- File:The Man In The Mirror. Artistic..jpg
- File:The Many Shadows Of Pain..jpg
- File:Beautiful Eye..jpg
- File:Chris Dennis Rosenberg From A Conference In Uganda..jpg
- File:Intensity..jpg
- File:C.D.R. Risque Side 3..jpg
- File:C.D.R. Risque Side 4..jpg
- File:C.D.R. Risque Side 2..jpg
- File:C.D.R. Risque Side 1..jpg
- File:Dressed In A Beautiful "Navy" Blue Shirt..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Princeseiji (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Cyber goth girl model.jpg
- File:Cyber goth model.jpg
- File:Modèle Cyber.JPG
- File:Cyber Goth Girl Model.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shubham182 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of press articles/photos. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Dnwalli3 copy.jpg
- File:Dnwalli7.JPG
- File:Dnwalli6.JPG
- File:Dnwalli5.JPG
- File:Dnwalli4.JPG
- File:Dnwalli3.JPG
- File:Dnwalli2.JPG
- File:Dnwalli1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jovanciccomposer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:Veliki bozicni koncert djordje jovancic.jpg
- File:Koncert i promocija djela djordje jovancic.jpg
- File:Etnomjuzikl toplik - djordje jovancic.jpg
- File:Djordje-jovancic-pozadina-landing - Copy.jpg
- File:Draw-slavianski-bazaar-vitebsk-20120713-12.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Steven vargas(perry) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Leones 20-12 categoría 2002-2003.jpg
- File:Jugadores de leones 2012.jpg
- File:Edson saucedo 3.jpg
- File:Jugador de athletic united.jpg
- File:Edson saucedo 2.jpg
- File:Edson saucedo.jpg
- File:Jose conrado.jpg
- File:Uniforme Athletic united.jpg
- File:Atlhetic united.jpg
- File:Estadio "Agustín Ramírez".jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, as a crop of this image was uploaded already in June 2012 to http://www.babelsberger-filmgymnasium.de/mc/ecmodul_news/306/posts/970?facebox=true. http://www.babelsberger-filmgymnasium.de/?page=4 Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reasoning. We're talking about the full resolution version of an image. In order to prove that it was stolen, you need to show where the full resolution version was published before, not a smaller cropped version of it. --Sitacuisses (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary, the uploader needs to convince Commons/us that he/she is the true photographer or rights holder, not the other way round. The fact that there was a prior publication of this image, suggests that it might not be own work. If it had been a clear copyvio, there would be no such discussion and the image would have been deleted already. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is one of the actor's official images, you'll find it on the website of his talent agency [5], low resolution only. It was probably uploaded by a person related to the actor. A deletion request is not the appropriate means of asking for an OTRS ticket. You are frightening away a new user. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a question of opinion. The standard procedure would have been to tag it with no-permission, which would have resulted in speedy deletion after 7 days of no reaction from the uploader and without any regular place for discussion. A DR, such as this one, runs a slower pace and provides a forum for discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a question of opinion: No matter how much time there is, new users will never send a permission if you don't show them how to do that. Where is the link to Commons:OTRS/de in your deletion request? --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's a question of opinion. The standard procedure would have been to tag it with no-permission, which would have resulted in speedy deletion after 7 days of no reaction from the uploader and without any regular place for discussion. A DR, such as this one, runs a slower pace and provides a forum for discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is one of the actor's official images, you'll find it on the website of his talent agency [5], low resolution only. It was probably uploaded by a person related to the actor. A deletion request is not the appropriate means of asking for an OTRS ticket. You are frightening away a new user. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary, the uploader needs to convince Commons/us that he/she is the true photographer or rights holder, not the other way round. The fact that there was a prior publication of this image, suggests that it might not be own work. If it had been a clear copyvio, there would be no such discussion and the image would have been deleted already. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Please show permission by following the instructions at COM:OTRS (English) or COM:OTRS/de (German). Bitte zeigen Sie Berechtigung anhand der Anweisungen in COM:OTRS (Englische) oder COM:OTRS/de (Deutsch). Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good example of nudity specific with respect to naturism, also for absence of tan line dimensions. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nice little glimpse of nudist life. We do document nudism (naturism) as we do all aspects of life and there is not a glut of images as yet. If we ever do get such a glut, we'll need to discuss which nudism images get deleted and which kept. And why are people taking nudist nudity as pornographic? --Simonxag (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Leaning towards Keep, (this is NOT porn, thus not COM:PORN either), and again ridiculous spelling of "arguments" by Yikrazuul... OTOH, commons have some good examples of naturism, so mass-uploaded nudity photos should be scrutinized thoroughly. What about accepting uploads only if the description demonstrates educational value, like the wikipedia which has the notabiety requirement on articles (including the requirement to show the subject is notable)?
- p.s. In this discussion, Cirt's arugments ain't that ricidulous. :P 217.251.158.249 07:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Cirt and Simonaxg, nudism is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Falls out of scope. Non-notable people. This was uploaded by someone who just uploads all of the nudity photos they can find. Nudity that falls within the scope is fine, but just randomly adding images with no care towards use isn't. We don't accept it for any other area, so why for nudity? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good example of varying shades of skin pigmentation and diversity among naturists. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom (this is really COM:PORN), and again ridiculous arugments by Cirt, no fuzz about it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The scene of a group of people posing for a nude photograph (not this photograph, you see both them and the camera) is quite unusual. Add the setting on a stage surrounded by others, it becomes more unusual yet. Any photo library would welcome such a quirky shot and I doubt they'd put it in a porn section. I would agree with the nominator if this was just another young woman being beautiful of which we do have many examples. --Simonxag (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nudism is within scope, abd Simonaxg makes a compelling case. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File is in use at tr:Behsat Üvez. No indication given for a copyright violation. --GeorgHH • talk 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you can take a look at "extended details" section, you can't see any details like in this file.--Rapsar (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: While a lack of EXIF data may indicate a potential copyvio, it is not determinative on its own. Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ComputerHotline as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It's a SOHO image. It's copyrighted..
Converted by me to DR, as the image is 4 years on Commons and as this problem concerns a number of similar images. So, a discussion might be appropriate. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:SOHO EIT 284.jpg
- File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png
- File:SOHO EIT 304.jpg
- File:Coronal Mass Ejection Las020.gif
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep at least File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png; its source page only indicates "Please give credit for this item to: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio" (which I did), and according to this page:
| “ | Some SVS images produced in collaboration with other labs have distinct copyrights. For those instances, the copyright notices are noted on the page with the image.
For all other images obtained from this site, please give credit to: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio. |
” |
- So I think it's pretty clear there's no issue with this image. –Tryphon☂ 11:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all. Here are my comments from the SOHO EIT 284.jpg and 304.jpg:
"I sent an email to the webmaster regarding this image from the page as referenced on the File page here.
The webmaster has kindly sent a reply that contains this: "You are welcome to use SOHO images for Wikimedia and as stated (http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html ) without expressed authorisation as long as you provide appropriate credit."
As usual I will be happy to forward this email to whomever. I only ask that my real name and personal email be kept confidential. I'll put this same message on the other SOHO image put up for speedy deletion.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)" --Marshallsumter (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- "As stated (http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html ) " means "The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization.". Releasing these images with a free license allowing commercial reuse is not what the kind webmaster stated, nor what the copyright notice allows. Tagging those files with a PD tag is going even further.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is as long as appropriate credit is attached. I specifically asked him about PD and that is his response. I have mentioned many times before that NASA always puts copyright information, if any is applicable, at the bottom of the page that displays images. The Webmaster also affirmed that NASA images lacking specific copyright information are PD: "You are correct, NASA images are automatically in the PD ... SOHO images are not by default in the PD but can be used and credited/cited as described at the Copyright page mentioned above." --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The title section image is on Coronal mass ejection; however, no credit is given with the image, so this usage on Wikipedia is in direct copyright violation of the ESA. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please notice that the answer of the webmaster means that the concerned files can't be on Commons and must be deleted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not true! My specific email stated: "I may only [u]se these images, with appropriate credit of course, if they are PD." The webmaster's response still is "You are welcome to use SOHO images for Wikimedia and as stated
(http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html ) without expressed authorisation as long as you provide appropriate credit." Bold added. User Pere prlpz is always welcome to send an email to the webmaster, George Dimitoglou responded to me, worded with the user's concerns for clarification. --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The e-mail you provided says "As stated" in the link, and the link says very clearly only non commercial usage. Then, the e-mails says you can use it in Wikipedia but you can't put a CC-BY-SA nor PD tag on it, so they aren't free and they can be uploaded to Commons. Maybe you can upload them to some Wikipedias under local doctrine of exemption for non free content.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No again! He's simply saying that "without expressed authorization as long as you provide appropriate credit" and this is stated in the copyright message. This coupled with "You are welcome to use SOHO images for Wikimedia" becomes PD. As long as credit is given the images are PD, but the Wikipedia image is not PD because no appropriate credit is given. This specific use on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. I believe the point you are making is that including a credit line such as "Credit: SOHO (ESA & NASA)" to have an image as Public Domain (PD) is not free. I have added this to each image. You may be right. This may require all such SOHO images to be deleted, or not. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- As an example, I can upload the image to Wikiversity, include the credit line indicated above and be free of copyright restrictions. If this is acceptable to Commons, I'll transfer them to Wikiversity. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "You are welcome to use SOHO images for Wikimedia" doesn't mean the images are in the public domain, on the contrary. It means you are allowed to use the images for a specific purpose ("for Wikimedia", which I assume falls under the educational category of uses), or to put it differently, there are uses that are forbidden without permission (commercial uses for instance), which wouldn't be the case if the images were in the public domain (anyone could use the images for any purpose, without any restrictions).
So the credit line has little to do with the issue here; the problem is that commercial use isn't allowed, and the email you cite only gives permission to use the images "for Wikimedia", which is not broad enough to keep them on Commons (see COM:L). –Tryphon☂ 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "You are welcome to use SOHO images for Wikimedia" doesn't mean the images are in the public domain, on the contrary. It means you are allowed to use the images for a specific purpose ("for Wikimedia", which I assume falls under the educational category of uses), or to put it differently, there are uses that are forbidden without permission (commercial uses for instance), which wouldn't be the case if the images were in the public domain (anyone could use the images for any purpose, without any restrictions).
- Here's some more images that must include the credit: "SOHO (ESA & NASA)" to be PUBLIC DOMAIN and available for any use per the Webmaster:
- File:LASCO C1a.png
- File:28102003 lasco eit.jpg
File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).ogv(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm 2003-11-04 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).png(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm 2003-10-30 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).png(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm 2003-10-28 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).png(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).png(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))- File:Comet SOHO-6.jpg
File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 304 Å).ogv(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-MDI, Magnetograms).ogv(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-MDI, Continuum).ogv(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).ogv(not from SOHO's website –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I'll add any more I find. Some have been here since 2006 without a take-down notice to Commons from ESA. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Credit line CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses are applicable where a credit line is required. And, apparently these are allowed on Commons. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: File:Comet SOHO-6.jpg may have a proper license that can be put on all of the above images. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, it's not about the credit line. And requiring a credit line is by no means equivalent to a cc-by or cc-by-sa license. I've stricken out from your list the images I've uploaded, because they shouldn't be credited to "SOHO (ESA & NASA)"; the credit line is correct as it stands. I don't know about the others, but they're probably not in the public domain, and changing the credit line won't change that fact. –Tryphon☂ 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Each of the file titles you drew a line through states:"For more information, visit the SOHO project page." which brings you to [6] the same situation all these files are in. Commercial use is allowed as long as an appropriate credit line is included. The movies put together by GSFC use SOHO images in each frame so each of your uploads is subject to deletion here just like the others unless an appropriate credit line such as "SOHO (ESA & NASA)" without the quotes is included. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, commercial use is not allowed for the images that come from the SOHO website; quoting [7] (emphasis mine):
| “ | The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization. It is requested, however, that any such use properly attributes the source of the images or data as [...] | ” |
- So it is requested (not even required) that any educational or non-commercial use properly credits SOHO; all other uses require explicit permission from SOHO. This type of license (restricted to certain uses) is not acceptable on Commons.
As for the images I've uploaded (I've stricken them out again, please don't revert), they do not come from that website; see my very first comment on this page for an explanation. –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- So it is requested (not even required) that any educational or non-commercial use properly credits SOHO; all other uses require explicit permission from SOHO. This type of license (restricted to certain uses) is not acceptable on Commons.
- Keep all - "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." [8] SOHO images on commons should be checked to insure proper credit per http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html but PD usage here is well within the stated terms from NASA. --Mu301 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept the title image, as it is from a site that has a clear free use statement. Deleted the next four -- the SOHO site has a very clear NC statement and the message from the webmaster simply points at it, but does not overcome it.
Kept File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png from NASA site.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a fictional flag and I think that makes it out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not fictional, it's an LGBT pride flag, that's very different. Keep Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is fictional, because the uploader is the creator of this flag. It has not been used in anywhere before, in real life I mean.--Rapsar (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not fictional, it's an LGBT pride flag!. Lubunya (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Created by your imagination. That makes it unreal, out of scope.--Rapsar (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, there's plenty of LGBT flag maps, they're all valid. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't get it. This flag is not been used in "real life" -as long as I know. Something like original research.--Rapsar (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Original research" means nothing on Commons, that's a Wikipedia term. It's common at different pride parades around the world to see augmented national flags with the rainbow stripes, this easily could have been spotted in Ankara or Instabul, and even if it hasn't, that doesn't mean it has no scope and should just be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't use it as a Wikipedia term. I was trying to say that this flag is completley "fictional" (again, I didn't see it in real life, anywhere before) and thus, this image is a personal image. As long as it is not being used, it should be deleted per Commons:Project scope.--Rapsar (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are using a term which applies to Wikipedia. Fictionality on it's own is not a reason for something to be deleted here. Also, the fact you haven't seen it in real life, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's completely plausible. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't prove something that does not exist. Can you prove that this flag(s) used in anywhere in real life? There will be no reason to delete this file if you or someone prove that.--Rapsar (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are using a term which applies to Wikipedia. Fictionality on it's own is not a reason for something to be deleted here. Also, the fact you haven't seen it in real life, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's completely plausible. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't use it as a Wikipedia term. I was trying to say that this flag is completley "fictional" (again, I didn't see it in real life, anywhere before) and thus, this image is a personal image. As long as it is not being used, it should be deleted per Commons:Project scope.--Rapsar (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Original research" means nothing on Commons, that's a Wikipedia term. It's common at different pride parades around the world to see augmented national flags with the rainbow stripes, this easily could have been spotted in Ankara or Instabul, and even if it hasn't, that doesn't mean it has no scope and should just be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't get it. This flag is not been used in "real life" -as long as I know. Something like original research.--Rapsar (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong, there's plenty of LGBT flag maps, they're all valid. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Created by your imagination. That makes it unreal, out of scope.--Rapsar (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Fry1989. INeverCry 19:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
