Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/09
 |
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}
I mistakenly named the photo "Willis Mickie House" instead of "Willis Mickle House," and it's not clear to me how to change the title without deleting it. Charmar (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Problem solved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Supposedly this image shows the park of Hohenheim Castle in Stuttgart, Germany. All I can see is a badly photographed set of drawers, so I must assume this upload is either a mistake or a bad joke and thus out of project scope. Rosenzweig τ 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like a test or a joke Raymond 18:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational purpose and no possible use since author alleged he created as a homework based in Açores flag. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused ficticious flag, out of scope (please refer to this thread at wiki-pt) Darwin Ahoy! 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete - IJMM licenses their work by-nc-sa, not acceptable on Commons. Óðinn (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Julo (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork. BrightRaven (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Julo (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Julo (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replaced this image by Nucleosome organization.png because of problems with pattern on H1 histone when saving as .gif Darekk2 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The artist, Lucien Brasseur died in 1960. This sculpture in France is still copyrighted there until 2031 or 70 yrs after his death. French FOP laws are very strict on modern art. Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
On COM:NUDE guidelines of being low quality/etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination High Contrast (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Uploader requests deletion of own superfluous half-resolution version of this image AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the old logo of Internazionale FC Milano, an association football club from Italy. It does not appear to be below the threshold of originality, thus should be considered a copyvio. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
nmb2nm,ssdrw2nm2 85.16.134.154 10:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given for deletion. INeverCry 00:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (the Memorial has been recently built and is original : no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator. Pymouss Let’s talk - 09:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
movie poster (commons does not allow fair use) Puramyun31 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. Building from 1997 according to en:Robinsons Place Bacolod. Stefan4 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Note: Transferred to enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
not uploader's own work: appears to be a screen-grab of the iTunes file format icon in Windows thumperward (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
not uploader's own work: appears to be a screen-grab of the iTunes file format icon in Windows thumperward (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
useless image; promotional and/or spamming watermark, possibly copyviol Barbaking (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
C&P more than bad, not used Nolispanmo 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not a monument picture but just a "test" picture vip (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational content, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Appears to be just a snapshot of three friends in a costume shop, which makes the file out of scope. In addition, the file lacks a description that gives it any significance or meaning. Senator2029 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Private, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Description claims to be both the own work of the uploader and to have permission confirmed by OTRS. Whatever the case, I was unable to find any OTRS ticket mentioning this file or any ticket sent by the uploader. It's not impossible that the ticket exists in a non-permissions queue, but, given that the {{PermissionOTRS}} template was added by the uploader, I'm sceptical. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No license is specified in the OTRS ticket. The email appears to be from the copyright holder, but they don't indicate that they understand the implications of free licensing—I get the impression (from an automated translation of the Hebrew) that the customer thought they were licensing it for use on Wikipedia only. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No indication that this image was released under CC license Jarekt (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep
- I was under the impression that the license is only valid for images released and uploaded by the Bundesarchiv. This image was not. --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the agreement "asserts that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license." Do you have any evidence that it does not have the rights? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not question that "Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license", and I also do not question any images uploaded by user:BArchBot or images derived from the original batch. File File:Maastricht, Eurpean Top Conference, 1991 - B 145 Bild-F075760-0010.jpg was found on Bundesarchive website and uploaded by User:Kleon3, even without removal of their enormous watermark used to prevent the use of images from their website. Federal Archives never granted their license to this image. --Jarekt (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't understand you before. Delete King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- It was my fault. It is sometimes good to force others to clearly spell things out. So many things that are "obvious" to some are less than obvious to most, and DR should be clear. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't understand you before.
- I do not question that "Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license", and I also do not question any images uploaded by user:BArchBot or images derived from the original batch. File File:Maastricht, Eurpean Top Conference, 1991 - B 145 Bild-F075760-0010.jpg was found on Bundesarchive website and uploaded by User:Kleon3, even without removal of their enormous watermark used to prevent the use of images from their website. Federal Archives never granted their license to this image. --Jarekt (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the agreement "asserts that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license." Do you have any evidence that it does not have the rights? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the license is only valid for images released and uploaded by the Bundesarchiv. This image was not. --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
hoax, and licence violation (no original author for city hall, nor the naked man) --MGuf (d) 18:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not the creator of this file and I really can't remember what happened in 2007. There are numerous other pictures of the Touba mosque, so you can delete this one. Ji-Elle (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have transferred the image from en-wikipedia. I have not seen that it has been overwritten by Ji-Elle (not on my watch list). --Atamari (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is unrelated to the previous deletion discussion for a file with the same name.
The "Creative Commons Attribuzione – Non commerciale – Non opere derivate 3.0 licenza CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0" statement contradicts the licensing template. According to Commons' licensing policy, we cannot host content unless commercial use and derivative works are permitted. The attempt to impose these additional restrictions was made 18 days after the initial upload. Since the file had already been published under a free, irrevocable license, the additional restrictions are unenforceable. However, as a courtesy, we sometimes allow licensors to change their mind, to the extent that if the content is unused and the change of mind happens within 7 days of uploading, it's a criterion for speedy deletion. This was above the 7 day threshold for speedy deletion and the file is in use, but it's close enough that deletion should still be considered if the uploader does not want the file to be available under a free license. However, if the file is kept, the additional restrictions should be removed so as not to deter reusers (or it should be clarified that the effect is that the files are multi-licensed, as I have already done with the numerous other files by the same uploader in the same situation, but where the new terms were added months or years after the original licensing). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Widely used three year old image. I see little point in deleting it under the circumstances. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect description; image much more recent than 1878 hence PD-US inapplicable. Just generic "filler". bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- hardly a piece of art
I have a link to where I found the book on the internet. "More recent than 1878" could mean anything. I vote it stays as an image because it is in Danish and seems harmless as far as any copyright infringement goes.
This is the link. It's my understanding that Either/Or was originally written Either-Or
Enter-Eller 11614soup (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The description uploaded with the image was "1878 Danish cover of Soren Kierkegaard's Enter-Eller (Either/Or)". This is not true, so I'm skeptical about the claim that the image is public domain (though that might be a moot point considering the more likely origin of the image). So, I suspect this image has three separate problems:
- minimal educational value (since the image was created very recently, as a placeholder, by a very short perl script; rather than being a fine old example of 19th century printing & bookmaking)
- a factually incorrect description
- an invalid license.
- Is it possible to fix those problems? bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Please fix the description. Yann (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation used only for vandalism purposes Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- speedy Delete; it is indeed a copyright violation of [1]. I've marked it for speedy deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mys 721tx. Yann (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Published on official site (here) together with a series of similar images - probably copyvio. --Art-top (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution for own work, missing original exif - doubtful authorship. Uncategorized, lack of a clear description and name of the file - perhaps out of project scope. Other user files offered for removal. Art-top (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like scan from a book, unclear authorship. Funfood ␌ 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like scan from a book, unclear authorship. Funfood ␌ 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a promo image. Unlikely own work ViperSnake151 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - even if own work by the uploader, copyvio of Windows OS. Óðinn (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Tons of similiar images of this one can be found on the web - if you have the time, you can find the one with the same image resolution High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I mistakenly photographed bad place, the correct one lies one hundred meters away --D T G (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete. INeverCry 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- So what would be valid in this case? D T G (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not educationally useful: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.. When I was taking that photo I thought it was a medieval Slavic Gord, but eventually I realized it wasn't there but somewhere else. As I recently went to proper place and took other photos placed here Category:Międzyświeć Gord, I think the File:POL Międzyświeć Piekiełko.jpg is totally rubbish. D T G (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. According to en:SM Megamall, the building appears to be from 1991.Stefan4 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:TOO. I can hardly see what is copyrightable about this building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- As Philippine copyright law is based on US law, I would imagine threshold of originality would be defined similarly (the US has a pretty high bar). The Philippines just doesn't have enough case law to decide it one way or another. On Commons, if we are not sure about something because of insufficient research on our part, we play it safe and delete, but if we're not sure about something because it actually is pending case law, we keep. Take, for example, the URAA pictures that were provisionally accepted before the court ruling came out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just found the following in Sec. 186: "Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which that copyright relates." While not directly related, I think this implies some sort of threshold. Think about it: Suppose someone built a building shaped like a grey cube, with no features, nothing at all. If someone else came along and built a grey cube-shaped featureless building (which is almost identical to the first by necessity of the description), is that a copyright violation? You could say, well, it's almost identical, and hence "recognizably derived from the original." But an idea that can be expressed in a short phrase like "grey cube-shaped featureless building" is merely a style, and so we have a contradiction. So we conclude that there ought to be some threshold of originality, only above which is an idea separable from its expression. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that quote looks interesting. There is also another thing: COM:CRT#The Philippines tells that artistic works are copyrighted for life+50 years whereas applied art only is copyrighted for creation+25 years. Would a building count as an artistic work or as applied art? It doesn't affect anything here, but it is certainly relevant for other buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have always been using creation+25, as you can see the parameters I have been putting in w:Template:FoP-USonly on my transfers of Philippine building photos from here to enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that quote looks interesting. There is also another thing: COM:CRT#The Philippines tells that artistic works are copyrighted for life+50 years whereas applied art only is copyrighted for creation+25 years. Would a building count as an artistic work or as applied art? It doesn't affect anything here, but it is certainly relevant for other buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per KoH. Yann (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
SM malls are considered as distinct architectural works in the Philippines (and architecture is treated as a form of fine arts here rather than applied art as in the West). This particular section of SM Megamall is the original Buildings A and B, which were designed by Architect Antonio Sindiong who died in 1996. There's no freedom of panorama yet in the Philippines, and COM:OTRS permission from Sindiong's heirs is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. Building from 2003 according to en:SM City Marilao. Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:TOO. I can hardly see what is copyrightable about this building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's keep our discussion to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per KoH. Yann (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Architecture is considered as a form of fine arts in the Philippine artistic sphere and society. Per two news articles (Philippine Star and Inquirer via PressReader), the shoebox-type designs of SM malls were conceptualized by the mall corporation's founder Henry Sy, Sr., and he is considered by the company as the first architect of the SM Supermalls. As there is no FOP right now in the Philippines, permission from Sy's heir in SM mall shoebox designs, SM's Engineering, Design, and Development is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that something like a coat of arms of Kabylia has ever existed, outside of Commons. Fanfwah (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course, this image is not a problem per itself: my concern is in keeping it WITH this title AND WITHOUT any source to support it. Giving it a status that does not correspond to any formerly existing reality makes it unuseful, and even prejudicial, for an educational purpose. However, if somebody wants to keep it here, I see at least two solutions:
- find a source OR
- change the title (for something like "blue and yellow coa", for example).
--Fanfwah (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, out of scope Ezarateesteban 18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that something like a coat of arms of Kabylia has ever existed, outside of Commons. Fanfwah (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, out of scope Ezarateesteban 18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This tank was in service from 1936 (en:Panzer 35(t)); it's not known when this image was made or published, but it means it's unlikely the image was out of copyright on 1/1/1996, and therefore falls foul of COM:URAA. Plus in Germany it may be in copyright anyway under their curious pre-1995 anonymous work provision (see {{Anonymous-EU}}). The same probably applies to all other images of this tank (Category:LT vz. 35) claimed to be PD-anon. Rd232 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 18:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Contested no source. Apparently no one has bothered to question how the user who uploaded this image to Wikipedia could have taken it 82 years ago; this image is unsourced, and we do not know its copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read the information I just added? Your DR is really harassment. The uploader said that he took the picture at the Sardar Patel National Memorial, Ahmedabad. Yann (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The irony in this statement is almost too much. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is likely PD in USA if it was published in India before 1942, but there is no evidence of any publication. Without any evidence of publication, we have to assume that it is still copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a famous picture that has been published hundreds of times (if not thousands) since it was taken. Assuming that it is not published is ridiculous. As Carl L. said several times with better words than mine, we should not ask unreasonable requirements when all the probabilities show that it a public domain file. Yann (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it has been published hundreds of times, then why hasn't anyone managed to identify a single publication of the photo? If it has been published so many times, it should be trivial to identify a publication of the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed; also your contention that this photograph was taken by the uploader (82 years ago!) is probably incompatible with the statement that this is a famous photograph published hundreds of times. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is a misundertanding here. I never intended to mean that the original picture was taken by the uploader. The original picture is exposed at the Sardar Patel National Memorial, Ahmedabad, and was photographed there by the uploader. Yann (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, that clears things up quite a bit. If we know it was published prior to 1942 then it should be OK to house here, as free in US and India. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is a misundertanding here. I never intended to mean that the original picture was taken by the uploader. The original picture is exposed at the Sardar Patel National Memorial, Ahmedabad, and was photographed there by the uploader. Yann (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a famous picture that has been published hundreds of times (if not thousands) since it was taken. Assuming that it is not published is ridiculous. As Carl L. said several times with better words than mine, we should not ask unreasonable requirements when all the probabilities show that it a public domain file. Yann (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
One contributor placed a speedy tag that had a url in it, not an explanation. The URL was to http://worldpics.com.au/Afghanistan/flags/slides/afghanistan1747.html -- which had an image of the flag, and a brief description.
Another contributor disagreed with the speedy deletion, and asked my help changing the speedy to a deletion discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on flags, and their copyright status. But, since the flag was used from 1818-1842, if it was a regular image it would have long since fallen into the public domain, due to its age. Geo Swan (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for creating the project page, Geo Swan. Since no explanation is given in the first place, I think the file should not be deleted. Khestwol (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Historical Dictionary of Afghanistan, by w:Ludwig W. Adamec. "FLAG. Afghanistan's first national flag was the Abdali banner, depicting a cluster of wheat, a sword, and stars on a background of red and green." http://books.google.com/books?id=tp5IrLhWbTkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false The image in question here was copied from http://worldpics.com.au without permission and needs to be deleted or modified to the true Abdali banner, that's refering to the Durrani Empire flag.--Officer (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep - ineligible for copyright due to both age and simplicity. Óðinn (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
renamed to Nucleosome core particle 1EQZ v.5.jpg Darekk2 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
renamed to Nucleosome core particle 1EQZ v.4. Darekk2 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
renamed to Nucleosome core particle 1EQZ v.3.jpg Darekk2 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this count as textlogo? It's a very simple design. Darwin Ahoy! 05:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, the castle design seems to exceed the threshold of simple text and geometric figures; not PD unless artwork is PD for some other reason. Also highly dubious creation and copyright claim by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Very simple design, possibly counts as textlogo Darwin Ahoy! 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, not text & geometric figures, false license claim, orphan. Infrogmation (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Flag for a country that does not exist. Rschen7754 07:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. While some non-existent countries might be in scope if they have certain notability, no evidence that "Spolborga" qualifies. Out of project scope vanity upload. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Coat of arms for a country that does not exist. Rschen7754 07:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. While some non-existent countries might be in scope if they have certain verifiable notability, no evidence that "Spolborga" qualifies. Out of project scope vanity upload. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A smaller, likely off-color version, of File:Adolfo_Guiard_-_The_Little_Village_Girl_with_Red_Carnation_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. If not for the color difference, I would have tagged this as a duplicate. Rsberzerker (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Closed as Kept. 2 files of the same painting-- this one is IN USE in multiple Wikimedia projects. As to the "off-color", the yellowish cast looks to me that this is a photo of the painting before a restoration cleaning, and the other image is an after cleaning photo. I have added links to the alternative version to both file descriptions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A much smaller, looks like a bad scan, version of File:Adolfo_Guiard_-_The_Little_Village_Girl_with_Red_Carnation_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. This adds no educational value since we have the better version. Rsberzerker (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, somewhat blurry lower resolution version showing nothing not shown in superior file. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Athde as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Lizenzinformation wurde aus Quelle entfernt.
Converted to DR by me, as such a situation needs a discussion. Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
An identical version of this image, but touched up, is at File:Brickell1.JPG; having both is redundant. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation. There is no proof that the uploader is the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The "Source: Own work" and "I, the copyright holder" claims indeed seem hard to reconcile with "Author: post of Al Bayda". If the latter can be verified, though, it is likely that the fourth clause of {{PD-Libya}} applies. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no evidence that User:Famefad has permission to publish images from http://famefad.com/ under free licences. The similar user names suggest that the website might be operated by the same person, but we need OTRS here. Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Photograph originally taken by the owner of Famefad.com who is the copyright owner of this photo also operates the wikimedia commons page Famefad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famefad (talk • contribs) 2012-10-10T12:07:00 (UTC)
- Could you send evidence of this to OTRS? See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that User:Famefad has permission to publish images from http://famefad.com/ under free licences. The similar user names suggest that the website might be operated by the same person, but we need OTRS here. Stefan4 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Photograph originally taken by the owner of Famefad.com who is the copyright owner of this photo also operates the wikimedia commons page Famefad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famefad (talk • contribs) 2012-10-10T12:07:58 (UTC)
- Could you send evidence of this to OTRS? See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by VladimirMeraklija84 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyvios - source website for all the profile shots is copyright 2011-2012: http://www.fcradnicki-nis.com/ - the action shot is from another copyrighted site per the source - the group photo didn't pass flickr review
- File:ZoranPesic.jpg
- File:NikolaMladenovic.jpg
- File:ZoranVaskovic.jpg
- File:StrahinjaPetrovic.jpg
- File:NenadStamenkovic.jpg
- File:MiodragFilipovic.jpg
- File:IvanMilenkovic.jpg
- File:FilipKalcic.jpg
- File:AleksandarJovanovic.jpg
- File:AleksandarSimov.jpg
- File:MilosPetrovic1.jpg
- File:NikolaStefanovic.jpg
- File:AleksandarBajevski.jpg
- File:StevanStefanovic.jpg
- File:MarkoRandjelovic.jpg
- File:VladanBinic.jpg
- File:MilosZivkovic.jpg
- File:BranislavVukomanovic.jpg
- File:NikolaLukic.jpg
- File:BojanDjordjevic.jpg
- File:MilosPeric.jpg
- File:Dusan Kolarevic.jpg
- File:Bratislav Pejcic.jpg
- File:FirstGameOnNewCair.jpg
INeverCry 03:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete small resolution Motopark (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Darwin Ahoy! 06:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused bad quality private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sergey DELnet (talk · contribs)
[edit]"Own works": logo, copyrighted (watermarked) image, low resolution image with other author in exif and other uploads - doubtful authorship.
- File:Логотип Брянского цирка.jpg
- File:Первый фестиваль циркового искусства в Брянске.jpg
- File:Sarach.jpg
- File:Фестиваль.jpg
- File:Цирк 1975.jpg
- File:Брянский цирк - логотип.jpg
- File:Брянский цирк.jpg
Art-top (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ThePastVoice (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, no permission.
- File:MaryLouMichettipage6.pdf
- File:MaryLouMichettipage5.pdf
- File:MaryLouMichettipage4.pdf
- File:MaryLouMichettipage2.pdf
- File:MaryLouMichettipage3.pdf
- File:MaryLouMichettipage1.pdf
- File:TonyMichettipage3.pdf
- File:TonyMichettipage4.pdf
- File:TonyMichettipage1.pdf
- File:TonyMichettipage2.pdf
Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tannerhansen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tzahy Lerner (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:30 שח 3.jpg
- File:שלושים שקלים בשעה שני.jpg
- File:שלושים שקלים בשעה.jpg
- File:30 שח 2.jpg
- File:SUMMER (178).jpg
- File:SUMMER (83) (1).jpg
- File:SUMMER (184).jpg
- File:FIDELMAND700 100.jpg
- File:Fidelman (46).jpg
- File:Fidelman (61).jpg
- File:The Ballad of the Weeping Spring third.jpg
- File:The Ballad of the Weeping Spring second.jpg
- File:The Ballad of the Weeping Spring.jpg
- File:Chaim Sharir.jpg
- File:Hila Vidor in Whenever You Go.jpg
- File:Hila Vidor portrait.jpg
- File:Adi Arad five.jpg
- File:Adi Arad four.jpg
- File:Adi Arad third.jpg
- File:Adi Arad first.jpg
- File:עלילות פרדיננד.jpg
- File:Orna Shifris second.jpg
- File:Orna Shifris.jpg
- File:RASIUK-AVIRAM.jpg
- File:Inyan shel Gvarim.jpg
- File:Esti yerushalmi.jpg
- File:Hagit Grossman.jpg
- File:Naama Armon.jpg
- File:Magicopolis 0009.jpg
- File:Pic-Shlomit4.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't claim it is own work. He had send OTRS permission to all. I'm processing the queue and will add OTRS to all. please close this. matanya • talk 07:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I never claim it's my own work. I wrote the photographer name in the picture page and sent the signed permission to wikipedia, signed by the copyrights owner, for all the pictures. Tzahy Lerner (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Carmen maria ( chiviwawa).JPG
- File:Olga (chiviwawa).png
- File:Maria jesus (chiviwawa).jpg
- File:Raquel (chiviwawa).jpg
- File:Maria (chiviwawa).jpg
- File:Co.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishnumhn24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]What new could be added to Category:Human penis?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Promo photos, no evidence of permission.
- File:La N Maggie Moo´s Poster.jpg
- File:La N Actors Poster.jpg
- File:La N Poster.jpg
- File:Sara Torre 2.jpg
- File:Sara Torre.jpg
- File:Mariel Denisse 2.jpg
- File:Joe Gabrielo 2.jpg
- File:Janilka Romero.jpg
- File:Janilka Romero 2.jpg
- File:Joe Gabrielo.jpg
- File:D'Angelo Saverni 2.jpg
- File:Angel Manuel.jpg
- File:Angel Manuel 2.jpg
- File:D'Angelo Saverni.jpg
- File:Mariel Denisse.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александра Розанова (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: File:Андрей Александрин кино.jpg (per description and wiki use) seems to be a TV capture (see also watermark right bottom). The rest: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. All files related to one actor - and the user already grabbed some copyrighted (and tagged/deleted) material from the internet... Obs.: File:Герцог Бекингем1.jpg for me actually doesn´t display...
- File:Андрей Александрин кино.jpg
- File:Герцог Бекингем1.jpg
- File:Бендетто1.jpg
- File:Бендетто2.jpg
- File:Герцог Бекингем.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
this os not the flag of French Indochina but the one of colonial Annam. As any other french colony, the french tricolore was used as the flag of French Indochina Antemister (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: If the file just has the wrong name, you can ask for it to be COM:RENAMED. No reason for deletion given here. Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"{{Duplicate}}" of File:Flag of Colonial Annam.svg. Additionally this has a wrong name (not Indochina) 93.132.117.16 21:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- See[2] for details.--Antemister (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also see User_talk:Antemister#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Flag_of_French_Indochina.png. I am not knowledged enough about history to close this DR. --McZusatz (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. Wizardman 15:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no indication of free licensed music in this video. Pristurus (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Support yes to delete. this file contains a copyrighted work --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment Why not delete only the audio track in the video? Maybe its useless after, but not sure. --Slick (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
On Template talk:Derivative, Piotrus wrote:
- What is the policy basis for this template? The word derivative is not present at Commons:Deletion policy other than in the section "Missing legal information", which however clearly suggests that a normal deletion procedure (7 days discussion after warning) should be followed. Commons:Derivative works does not mention speedy deletion anywhere. As that page notes, some derivative works are ok for commons, others are not. I've seen this template used in a number of cases when it shouldn't be; thus I think it encourages improper deletions and should be deleted. Per deletion policy, all derivative works should receive a proper deletion debate, and not be speedied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are many cases of (possible/alleged) "derivative work" where exceptions like de minimis or freedom of panorama may apply; those need discussing in a DR. The template originally said This template should only be used for obvious cases, but that was lost in 2007. Even if "obvious cases" was restored, I don't know that we should really keep this tag. Rd232 (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The "obvious cases" sounds nice on the surface, but unless somebody can clearly define the obviousness here, with no exceptions, I am afraid people will be making mistakes. I am off to do an undeletion requests for some photos deleted by an admin who told me "copyvio is a speedy category", and then went inactive. Sigh. Copyvio (including, presumably, through infringing on derivative works) is clearly listed as a reason to list the file for deletion (Commons:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violation). There is nothing about an even obvious case of copyvio making anything a speedy deletion. (Although the way I look at it, anything can be speedied if the uploader gives the approval... but that's OT here). So, long story short, I do vote to delete this template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, the problem is that "obvious cases" depends on the issues being obvious to at least most people most of the time. If not, it puts a lot of burden on admins processing the speedy tags to recognise when the tag should be converted to a DR. I'm open to persuasion, but I lean to deleting the tag and requiring people to use DR. (There is actually a related discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:Media_missing_permission right now, about the burden of processing these tags.) Rd232 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The "obvious cases" sounds nice on the surface, but unless somebody can clearly define the obviousness here, with no exceptions, I am afraid people will be making mistakes. I am off to do an undeletion requests for some photos deleted by an admin who told me "copyvio is a speedy category", and then went inactive. Sigh. Copyvio (including, presumably, through infringing on derivative works) is clearly listed as a reason to list the file for deletion (Commons:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violation). There is nothing about an even obvious case of copyvio making anything a speedy deletion. (Although the way I look at it, anything can be speedied if the uploader gives the approval... but that's OT here). So, long story short, I do vote to delete this template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This is one of a number of images which were originally placed in the English Wikipedia article en:Helene Zelezny-Scholz which were taken directly from the original author's picasa and claimed to be released into the Public Domain as his own work, a claim which is almost definitely false. It is completely possible (even probable!) that this is in the public domain in the EU, but it's looking to be very hard to check. Per precautionary principle, probably ought to be deleted. ZX95 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The original Picasa you refer to owned and edited by me. Regards Nielsaage
Deleted: Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
With File:Heinrich Christian Schumacher, von Otto Speckter 1853.jpg a scan of higher quality is now available. Also I could not find the picture in Astronomische Nachrichten Bd.36 of 1853, Vorsatz http://books.google.de/books?id=o2M_AAAAcAAJ, which contains an obituary for Schumacher. Vsop.de (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile I found "Beilage mit Schumacher's Portrait und Facsimile" mentioned at the end of Nr. 864 http://books.google.de/books?id=o2M_AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA39, but while the facsimile is shown (http://books.google.de/books?id=o2M_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA3) the portrait is not. --Vsop.de (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, you can delete "File:Heinrich Christian Schumacher 2.jpg". The "File:Heinrich Christian Schumacher, von Otto Speckter 1853.jpg" ist much better. I don't know the exact reference in Astronomische Nachrichten. --Skraemer (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Matchboxes
[edit]Copyrighted matchbox covers. Some of them might be too simple, some may be in PD, but most of them are direct copyright violations.
- File:Allumettes Gitane.JPG
- File:Czechoslovak matches.jpg
- File:England's Glory.jpg
- File:Gwarando Matchbox.JPG
- File:Haushaltsware 3Pf Schachtel oben.jpg
- File:Lesney-matchbox.jpg
- File:Lights in Darkest England.JPG
- File:Locomotive safety matches label.jpg
- File:Luzifers kleines geschenk01.png
- File:Matchbox Ingrid and Frederik Wedding 1935.JPG
- File:Matches - SWAN VESTAS.jpg
- File:Matches from morocco.jpg
- File:Mitropa Zündhölzer Etikett.jpg
- File:Musée Européen de la Bière -Matchbox - Tourtel Brune.JPG
- File:NSKOV.jpg
- File:Roller safety matches.jpg
- File:Rädda Barnen matchbox.JPG
- File:SuperDeportistas.JPG
- File:Tordenskjold Sikkerhedstændstikker.jpg
- File:Tændstikker 3.jpg
- File:Wedding or engagement Matchbox.JPG
Sreejith K (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you nominate for deletion the covers which are in PD? If a work is in public domain, it cannot be "direct copyright violation", no way! It is destructive practice, isn't it? --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC) For example, This cover was published no later than 1903, so any copyright would have expired anyway. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think it is copyright violence? --Ludek (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The file File:SuperDeportistas.JPG has an OTRS letter from the Museo del Objeto del Objeto, which donated the image. Also, it is not a matter of copyright, but rather trademark if its a picture of the entire package... in which case you only need to put the template {{trademark}}148.241.160.55 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry... forgot to log in first Thelmadatter (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the writing of above two persons. Also, some of the brands do not even excist anymore and some of the pictures also have Swedish copyright markings and hence no copyright violation possible!?.--AlfvanBeem (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sreejith, if a photo shows only the (2D) matchbox label then, in some cases, it might be copyright violation - but if a matchbox is shown as a three-dimensional utilitarian object is it? I understand there is normally no copyright in "a 3D utilitarian object", or "photographs of typical household objects". Surely a box of matches qualifies both as a utilitarian object and as a typical household object? I can hardly think of anything more of "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function" or more common ("typical") than a box of safety matches - and, unless you show only the back of the box, without a label, it is hard to avoid including the label.Anyway normally a matchbox opens on the side with the label showing. We find photos like Soupjf.JPG including a Campbell's Soup can on Commons (see: "Category:Instant soups" for more) and there are numerous photos of Coca Cola bottles (see: Category:Coca-Cola_bottles), etc.. I see little difference here. Perhaps, as Thelmadatter suggested, the {{trademark}} template should be included to cover any label shown in the photo. Your own user page shows a picture of a Nikon camera with their Trademark logo and red flash clearly showing - another three dimensional depiction of a utilitarian object?
-- CFynn (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not all ulilitarian objects in their 3D form would be exempted from copyrights. Some matchboxes here would be considered as derivative of the art work (the picture on the top). For example in this image File:Tændstikker 3.jpg we can see matchsticks on side and thus proving household utility. We can also see that it is 3D. But it also clearly is a derivative of the portrait image on the box. Same cases with File:Czechoslovak matches.jpg and File:England's Glory.jpg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the nominated files are definitely in PD while some are copyright violations. For example, the first one will have to be deleted and the last one can be kept. The closing admin will review the files and will decide. I just brought all of them to a common discussion ground. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- In relation to File:Haushaltsware 3Pf Schachtel oben.jpg, In Wikipedia it says that the company was a pre-wordwar2 company and that the company that required the rights remained in effect after the conclusion of World War II and through to 1983. Thoes this not imply that there is no copyright anymore?--AlfvanBeem (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
In the file, SuperDeportistas.JPG can wikis not use Fair Use, actually use it since there is copyright in yellow at the bottom.--89.249.2.53 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! In case the image is deleted from here, you may upload it to any other wiki under fair use and other guidelines followed on that wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Inappropriate grab bag deletion request including diverse images of sources wildly varying in country, decade, etc. Includes some over a century old; no support offered for nominators claim "but most of them are direct copyright violations". Some individual images might be better relisted individually (or in small groups if the source/situation is the same) with the specific potential problem explained. I suggest this overly broad and confusing bulk deletion request be closed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per everything explained above plus the nominator is the same user that deleted the PD-text logo (File:Douglas Haig badge.png) alleging "copyright violation". Fma12 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Infrogmation. INeverCry 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Town hall of Calais
[edit]- File:20091220 - la neige à calais 023.jpg
- File:Beffroi hotel de ville calais au pied.jpg
- File:Beffroi hotel de ville calais.jpg
- File:Calais - Horloge du beffroi.jpg
- File:Calais Hotel de ville.jpg
- File:Calais hotel de ville.jpg
- File:Calais Rathaus.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01808.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01809.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01841.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01842.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01843.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01844.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01846.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01847.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville PM 01849.jpg
- File:Calais, Hôtel de Ville, Les Bourgeois de Calais PM 01817.jpg
- File:Calais-townhall-at-night.jpg
- File:Hotel de ville calais beffroi.jpg
- File:Hôtel de Ville de Calais.jpg
- File:P1040227 horloge mairie Calais.JPG
- File:Porte hotel de ville calais.jpg
- File:Stadhuiscalais.jpg
The architect of this building is Louis Debrouwer, died in 1967, as mentioned here amis du vieux Calais and here Louis_Debrouwer. About me, we can't keep these files. The Category:Belfry of Calais will not be empty, because of de minimis. To undelete in 2038. ----MGuf (d) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Les plus belles images devraient être transférées sur la Wikipédia francophone. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, comme toutes les photos que j'ai partagées sur commons qui ont été soumisent à suppression, je ne respecte pas cette débile liberté de panorama. Je ne vous jette pas la pierre votre remarque est pertinente mais cette absurde liberté de panorama est vraiment débile en France! Je pars du principe qu'un artiste/architecte qui réalise un batiment publique qui s'inscrit complètement dans le paysage publique doit obligatoirement en voir sa reproduction autorisée sous toutes les formes. Après sur mes clichés à supprimer, faite-le mais je n'arriverais pas à connaître la date possible de publication d'une reproduction à chaque monument que je photographie. Pour la publication sur Wikipedia, j'avais déjà commencé à les ajouter dans les pages notamment sur la page de Calais. La galerie que j'avais ajoutée a été supprimée au profit de plus de contenus. Pourquoi pas mais on ne peut pas tout mettre sur Wikipédia. En tout cas, je suis toujours aussi enthousiaste sur cette encyclopédie! Par contre cette photo du beffroi a été modifiée avec violation d'un usage normale : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calais_ville.jpg Comment on fait pour la suspendre ou la restaurer rapidement ? --Romainberth (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pour cette photo en particulier, il faut la supprimer, car elle est "out of scope" et "copyvio" ; soir attendre le résultat de le demande de suppression, soit la passer en {{copyvio}} (argumenter correctement pour que l'administrateur n'ai pas de doute et la garde, par erreur). ----MGuf (d) 13:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Done ----MGuf (d) 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I am always amazed by our colleagues who completely understand that a Picasso painting, such as Guernica, made to be exhibited in public, has a copyright, but fail to understand that a building is also a work of art and deserves the same respect. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument showing the pedestal of the monument
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Armenia, so photographs of copyrighted works are not permitted. Armenia's copyright term was extended from 50 years pma to 70 years pma in 2006. The sculpture is by Sergey Merkurov, who died in 1952, so it entered public domain in 2003 under the 50-year term; the pedestal is by Rafael Israelyan, who died in 1973, so it remains copyrighted until 2044.
- File:Koryun street Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mayr Hayastan statue Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mother Armeia 2007.jpg
- File:Մայր Հայաստան.JPG
cmadler (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- What's stopping us from cropping the majority of the pedestal and claiming de minimis on the rest? The first photo easily falls under that doctrine. Disclosure: I'm not directly affected by this deletion request, but I did upload the original resolution of one of these photos. Best, Blurpeace 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that could be done...though it would be a while before I could get around to it myself. cmadler (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I've cropped the base out of the three photos listed. The first, File:Koryun street Yerevan.jpg, I believe would plainly fall under COM:DM. I welcome opinions on the edits I've made and where a change might not have been needed or could be improved. Best, Blurpeace 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those look good to me...do the prior versions showing the pedestal need to be revdel'd? cmadler (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Armenian copyright in the pedestal expires 1/1/2044 (70 years pma), but US copyright, via URAA restoration, expires 1/1/2046 (95 years from publication, counting from the 1950 unveiling). cmadler (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those look good to me...do the prior versions showing the pedestal need to be revdel'd? cmadler (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In the name of the human rights of information, education and enjoyment of the human creations. Also in the name of a meaningful encyclopedia.--MrPanyGoff 09:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I doubt the piedestal gets a copyright, and it is probably de minimis anyway. Yann (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Armenia. The statue is from 1950 (see en:Mother Armenia) and en:Sergey Merkurov died in 1952. Armenia has a copyright term of life+70 years, so the statue enters the public domain in Armenia on 1 January 2023. The statue was also copyrighted in Armenia on the URAA date (19 October 2000), so the statue is currently also copyrighted in the United States, where it enters the public domain on 1 January 2046. Some files were previously kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arantz, but that discussion seemed to deal only with the copyright of the photo, not with the copyright of the statue. Some files were kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mother Armenia Monument with the motivation that the pedestal is de minimis. While I agree that the pedestal is de minimis, the statue is still copyrighted. That DR claims that the statues entered the public domain in Armenia in 2003. While this appears to be true, COM:CRT#Armenia suggests that the copyright was restored in Armenia in 2006.
- File:Mayr Hayastan statue Yerevan.jpg
- File:Mayr Hayastan.JPG
- File:Mother Armeia 2007.jpg
- File:Մայր Հայաստան.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment Until 2006 copyright term was 50 years , so it falls in the "free" period. I have no idea about 2000, you could explain that, but then again, that makes no sense, as the monument is free to shoot. Arantz (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. It does seem to be the case that Armenia's 2006 copyright law restored copyright on works that had passed into the public domain, so it is copyrighted in Armenia until 1/1/2023. We did also completely neglect to consider US copyright status in the previous deletion discussion, but it does seem to be copyrighted in the US until 1/1/2046. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment : en:Mother Armenia#Mother Armenia statue in Yerevan : "In spring 1962, the statue of Stalin was removed, with one soldier being killed and many injured during the process, and replaced by the Mother Armenia statue, designed by Ara Harutyunyan." : Ara Harutyunyan was born on 28 March 1928 but we don't know if he is dead. So, I'm not sure about "the statue enters the public domain on 1 January 2046". Bloody-libu (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom & Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. Images in Category:Statues in Armenia have to be checked. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Very simple design, does it count as textlogo? Darwin Ahoy! 06:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment IMO this one might qualify as text logo, but the source, creation, and license claim seem very dubious. If kept needs factual info on source, actual license status. Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm relying on an automated translation of the French, but it appears that no license was ever specified for this work, and no indication was given that the customer understood that they were releasing the image under a free license. The OTRS agent wrote back and asked the customer to specify a license (some four years ago) and explained what the conditions of the license meant, but no reply was ever received. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding in:
Which were uploaded by the same editor citing the same OTRS ticket number. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The author of those files is Andy Lehrer, who works with User:Anlirian and according to file descriptions is also User:Falco on Rumanian wiki. Andy Lehrer also contributed 50 other files (see Category:Andy Lehrer), all (but one) with proper licenses. I assume this file is just an omission especially since he also wrote to OTRS, giving "full permission to use without limitations" all his pictures and writing. If nothing else that sounds like {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} to me. By the way, 2 files added do have a fine license. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- It could be that something was lost in translation, but it appears to me that the customer didn't specify a license, and the OTRS agent wrote back asking if he'd like to use the GFDL but never received a reply. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but that's my interpretation of the email exchange. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
se n'est pas une eglise de l'art roman mais de l'art gothique si les personne vois cette image il se diserons que sais une eglise romane 88.160.15.115 17:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - La demande de suppression d'image est injustifiée de la part de cet utilisateur anonyme peu connaisseur de ce monument classé au patrimoine mondial par l’UNESCO. En effet, le titre et la description de l'image ne font nullement référence à l'art roman ou gothique même si ce monument peut effectivement être catégorisé ainsi comme le mentionne l'article de Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Tournai. -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - This deletion request is to dismiss, as the applicant is an anonymous person and his or her arguments are clumsy formulated, inappropriate and invalid. -- MJJR (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)