Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Wrong name, correcht category exists - blame me... Jwh (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: done. Trijnsteltalk 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Mars, Inc's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Sven Manguard on 14 October. Trijnsteltalk 09:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Not own work. See logo. 213.10.17.29 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: (c) viol Julo (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (The artist Buren is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete No FoP in France. Pymouss Let’s talk - 16:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France Julo (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (The artist Buren is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP in France. Pymouss Let’s talk - 16:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France Julo (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (The artist Buren is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP in France. Pymouss Let’s talk - 16:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France Julo (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Non-free, All rights reserved as noted by Dharmadhyaksha, should be removed to prevent file reversion Whatsitnow (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Coty's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of Theodor Stolojan1.jpg Cezarika1 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The date in the metadata doesn't match the date in the description. The image doesn't even appear in the link provided. Plus, this looks too good to come from an amateur. Zagalejo (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Update: found it on Getty Images [1]; clearly not usable here. Zagalejo (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Cadbury's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Cadbury's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Mars, Inc's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Mars, Inc's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of packaging are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV and COM:CB, infringement of Nintendo's copyright, artistic works are legally protected as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright, artistic works are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying from Arceus Pokemon movie graphics, artistic works are legally protected as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via drawing, artistic works are legally protected as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:Game Boy Color Pikachu.jpg|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep de minimis -- 178.190.42.87 08:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis. Yann (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via drawing, artistic works are legally protected as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Disney artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Disney's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Funfood. Yann (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
1. BLP violation. 2. Image never released CC. 3. OTRS not notified. 4. Uploader is not the copyright holder or photographer. Lexein (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio -- 178.190.42.87 08:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This image is completely useless, the byproduct of a bot mass upload. I'm not speedying it because I've been told that deleting images while these types of bots are running causes the bots to malfunction. However we have no use for placeholder images like this. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Also:
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1828 January 0028.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1828 January 0041.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1829 January 0004.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1829 January 0021.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1829 January 0068.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1830 January 0005.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1830 January 0066.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1830 January 0061.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1832 January 0001.pdf
- File:The New Orleans Bee 1832 January 0006.pdf
- All other similar placeholder images from the series.
I talk about that here 2 months ago. This is not a bot malfunction! Its simple impossible to select this 'missing pages' before upload. There is'nt any metadata or like this so I can't identify this. I request for comments 2 months ago, but there are'nt any. So I upload all images und try to find them online after upload by thumbnail. If I found one, I add them to Category:The_New_Orleans_Bee_-_missing_pages currently. IMHO they can removed, but until there is a clear statement I add them to this category only without a deletion request. --Slick (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not at all saying that the bot is malfunctioning. Most bot uploads have an acceptable number of images that should be deleted after the bot run is complete. For this run, these are the images. You didn't do anything wrong here, this is just regular cleanup. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard. Yann (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:Game Boy Color Pikachu.jpg|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis -- 178.190.42.87 08:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis. Yann (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems copyvio - http://www.taj-mahal-india-travel.com/taj-mahal-pictures.html Effeietsanders (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Good faith personal photo uploaded during wiki loves monuments. However, we don't house personal shots on this project. Sarah (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused perseonal picture, single upload from user, bad quality, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 09:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Most likely copyright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/show_match/5a28274f8350a7e2e4a60fefa7bbacf510cb65ab/67d2c817da441c318d288b0667e94a057835ca564771117e550fd100ccec6961?m13=0.0129341&m21=-2.59019e-06&m22=0.621947&m23=-0.033471&m11=0.621947&m12=2.59019e-06 Effeietsanders (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Useless, low quality image. It has been uploaded as part of WLM italy, but without a valid ID. It doesn't seem to show a monument or even a useful content Barbaking (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
either this is a real movie poster, in which case it is a copyvio, or it is not a real movie poster, in which case it is outside project scope DS (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The image that represents me is now useless. Alexander VIII (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The image that represents me is now useless. Alexander VIII (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/show_match/aafb787269fa1e547e9622f9426cbf86c2eb037e/0ee0021bfde2834f40b495ddce79d8eb8f11fa4a629bbd83337a17b374208f94?m13=0.0841085&m21=3.80705e-05&m22=0.200106&m23=-0.0987835&m11=0.200106&m12=-3.80705e-05 Effeietsanders (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/show_match/fe6a387d6ec886ccb4ee9ecf92b28dce652b15e7/9d815bde8f40f8d2671af10390d185781e713f372576705665cf89db47a950df?m13=-0.0227108&m21=-0.000185485&m22=0.999942&m23=0.0195208&m11=0.999942&m12=0.000185485 Effeietsanders (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 09:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
and File:Atlantique 074.jpg, File:Atlantique 082.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons contain enough beach/swimsuits photos already. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Taken without the subject consent, cannot be used for educational purpose. Yann (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality. Eduardo P (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sreejithk2000. Yann (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Also:
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This image is believed to be non-free in its country of origin: the United Kingdom. For an image to be posted on the Commons, it has to be free in both the United States and its country of origin. Atomicbeachball (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-font}} --Sreejith K (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Wdiv-hq.jpg SonicTheHedgehogDude (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work. Might be under the threshold of originality as an automatically-generated image, however. Closeapple (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Obviously the Google Street View image of 42°19′47.89″N 83°3′14.92″W / 42.3299694°N 83.0541444°W on Lafayette Avenue from June 2009, including the blurred back wheel on the convertable. Therefore, uploader's license is fake. However, it may be that Google Street View images are uncopyrightable (the copyright watermarks on them notwithstanding), based on what en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices says; in other words, Google Street View images might be in the public domain. It seems fairly certain that the image was captured as a long series of automatic photographs, of which neither the car driver nor any other person was exercising any sort of creative control. It also seems fairly certain that the selection of photographs for display on Google Street View was not done by hand. The Wikipedia article quotes a 1984 Copyright Office document that says that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable." --Closeapple (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)- Delete - It's not a pure mechanical process - creative decisions have been taken in advance such as the height of the cameras (as opposed to those decisions being taken for say security reasons, such as CCTV cameras), creative decisions are made at the time of taking the photograph such as the route taken to photograph the scenes (the latter often being the decision of the driver), They then undergo a semi-automatic processing phase where as well as elements automatically censored, other elements are censored on the creative decision of the processing team. In short it's closer to a work made for hire than an automatic work. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Questions: Is the camera height variable (e.g., from day to day or drive to drive), and if so who sets it and on what basis, or is it mounted at a fixed height above the car? (A fixed height above the car would make it more akin to a security video, while an adjustable mount, particularly one adjusted at the driver's discretion from day to day or drive to drive points toward a creative decision.) How does the route effect the final still outcome (other than a slightly different time of day resulting in slightly different cloud cover, for example)? Once the camera height is set, what does it matter in the context of the resulting still photo whether the driver went down Lafayette and then Fort Street, or Fort Street and then Lafayette? Finally, you mention censored elements. Within the context of this particular image, what elements might have been censored? (The car's license plate might have been manually blurred, but it's hard to tell because other elements around that, such as the tire, are also blurry, and in any case, I'd think blurring a single license plate would not be adequate creative input to copyright an otherwise uncopyrightable work.) cmadler (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would assume that blurring is made automatically by a computer program. Sometimes, the blurring goes wrong, and the errors seem to be things which only computers would get wrong. For example, check Helsinki Central Station (search for "Brunnsgatan, Helsingfors"). There are some giant statues in front of the station, and Google thought that the faces on the statues were human faces, so the statue faces have been blurred out. The statues haven't been blurred out on all of Google's images, but they are still blurred out on many of them. Also, still in Helsinki, check the bus terminal right next to the train station. Car registration numbers are frequently blurred out for privacy, but the computer has also blurred out the text on the advertisements on the buses, presumably thinking that the advertisements are car registration plates. Also, many road signs in Europe have been blurred out for the same reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know the details about camera height adjustment as I don't work for Google, but someone has made creative decisions on suitable camera angles in order to make this creative work, they've decided on an angle that's not too high so as to be looking down on every object passes nor too low to make objects look larger than they actually are and they do have different types of equipment used to get different shots in different locations such as using the lower height trailer bike camera to get close up to and around various buildings. That's very different from a CCTV camera that only ever monitors the one patch of ground at the one height. On the route issue, I've seen Google drivers pass a local landmark but have it blocked by a passing (or parked) bus or truck and so return down the street on the opposite side to get a better angle - that's a creative decision that does affect the final outcome. Similarly when they can't do that, I've seen them return at a later date to re-shoot the landmark and again that's another creative choice. Finally I see blurring as only a part of the overall creative process rather than the sole creative input going into the images, though there will be other creative processes such as image selection taking place when they process the images. But if the human process that blurs images like these (where the blurring is by human input and not the automatic face/licence plate detection) operates on all google images then then is a creative work in there and it will be much easier for Google to show that in court than for an end user of this image to prove they didn't. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Questions: Is the camera height variable (e.g., from day to day or drive to drive), and if so who sets it and on what basis, or is it mounted at a fixed height above the car? (A fixed height above the car would make it more akin to a security video, while an adjustable mount, particularly one adjusted at the driver's discretion from day to day or drive to drive points toward a creative decision.) How does the route effect the final still outcome (other than a slightly different time of day resulting in slightly different cloud cover, for example)? Once the camera height is set, what does it matter in the context of the resulting still photo whether the driver went down Lafayette and then Fort Street, or Fort Street and then Lafayette? Finally, you mention censored elements. Within the context of this particular image, what elements might have been censored? (The car's license plate might have been manually blurred, but it's hard to tell because other elements around that, such as the tire, are also blurry, and in any case, I'd think blurring a single license plate would not be adequate creative input to copyright an otherwise uncopyrightable work.) cmadler (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm uncomfortable with broad extensions of uncopyrightability. This is basically film, shot under the active control of a cameraman. By these lines, huge numbers of amateur photos would be uncopyrightable; angles of monuments that show no creative influence, times of day picked because the cameraman happened to be there, not because of importance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Lowell MBTA.jpg is a photo of mine that's a good example. I took a bunch of photos one day. Some time later, I realized the picture on Wikipedia was thumbnail-size, and I had previously taken this photo from the exact same angle. The day was also chosen because I was traveling that day. So there's little creativity in angle and time was dictated by convenience, in a similar manner to these Google photos. Nonetheless, I maintain that what little creativity is there would sustain a copyright, and that courts would probably dismiss an claim otherwise out of hand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's say I go up to the Taj Mahal and take a perfectly symmetrical picture of it. It's something that's been done millions of times before. So the primary input of my creativity would be in the timing: getting good light and minimizing distractions. Likewise, there is creativity in choosing when to drive the Street View car (it's not like a CCTV which is constantly on) in addition to the already mentioned positioning of the camera. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per consensus. INeverCry 00:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Wikimedia Commons scope. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Sarah (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Good faith Wiki Loves Monuments upload, however, it's just a picture of a person. Sadly, it falls out of scope of Commons mission. Sarah (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Also:
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit in Deutschland erlaubt keine Dinge aus Innenräumen. Heubergen (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:De minimis. --Leyo 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Von Panoramafreiheit redet auch keiner. Der Löschantrag ist völliger Unfug, da ist nichts urheberrechtlich Geschütztes zu sehen. Keep --FA2010 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Es ist wohl das Foto an der Wand gemeint. --Leyo 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The photo is de minimis. Yann (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo of user, autobio entries on Wikipedia deleted multiple times, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayanthsugavasi Holyoke, mass (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
ugly, unused and fake Chaoborus (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be a COM:DW of http://www.tokous.com/Event%20Reports/US%20Nationals%205%2010K%20Skate%20Photos%20and%20Report.htm (indexed per Google in 2008) = http://www.tokous.com/images/Pre%20Fall%202010/Zimmerman%20Nationals_2.jpg (full exif available). Considering Google: running gag, but copyrighted... Gunnex (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of scope Ileana n (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No educational value. In fact, this image is slanderous because it contains "M$", a famous shorthand sign for "Microsoft is greedy". Not very educational, right? Fleet Command (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This building was created by Marcel Breuer (1902-1981). As he died less than 70 years ago, his work can't be considered as free. More, there's no freedom of panorama in France, where this picture was taken. Pymouss Let’s talk - 09:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Own work unlikely - seems to be some webgrab 79.237.165.254 09:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not the uploaders own work. The badge is still copyrighted and is not in the public domain in the source country 79.237.165.254 09:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-RU-exempt}} does not work with this image - this license tag is only applicable to official symbols and formal documents of the Russian SFSR and the USSR 79.237.165.254 09:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
bad location; should be 100 km south Jack ma (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like this is something that could be fixed, rather than deleting the image outright. Powers (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
likely copyrighted text on informational sign Effeietsanders (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern artwork of living artist, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (architect Louis Arretche is dead in 1991) Remi Mathis (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Likely to be unauthorised redistribution of a photo on the official site: http://www.meiji-parents.jp/rengou/topics/meiji-university-311-aid.html whym (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (architect is stille alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (architect Zaha Hadid is still alive : no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation. Uploader is unlikely to be copyright holder. Rsberzerker (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
copy from http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-05-27&nid=11693 Bellayet (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative photo of a temporary construction site poster with probably copyrighted content. A.Savin 18:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
this picture owner is blocked user and vandal user:Mazandiran and this picture created with many pictures without any information and license MehdiTalk 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Image of the Atomium. Copyrighted, no FoP. GeorgHH • talk 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- That stinks, but now that I've looked up the info on Belgian law and the Atomium, I see there's no choice but to delete it. Oh well, Belgium's loss.OttawaAC (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
i doubt the user took this photograph. Many copyvios or wrong licenses acording to user history. Zeroth (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No original source information given. "Poster; too simple to copyright" is not a valid permission. GeorgHH • talk 23:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope? I'm not sure, but it seems to be cover art of album, not used. Maybe a copyvio, I don't know. Krzysiu (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC) is the album cover of homo-demen 2011. It is a major recording project with numerous guest artists. but if it is a crime, I erase myself. sorry!
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No OTRS, copyright violation. 86.217.67.162 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No OTRS, copyright violation. 86.217.67.162 23:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No OTRS, copyright violation. 86.217.67.162 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The bust is work of the sculptor Julij Papič (died in 1990); per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for commercial use. Eleassar (t/p) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Work of Ivan Sajevic, who died in 1972; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, the image is not free for commercial use. Eleassar (t/p) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A work from 1999, as written on it. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for commercial use. Eleassar (t/p) 22:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Work of Ivan Repič (unknown death year; the sculpture) and Ivan Jager (died in 1959; the fountain). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for commercial use, therefore not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: the true name of the sculptor was not Ivan Repič, but Alojz(ij) Repič.[2] He was born in 1866 and died in 1941,[3] which makes his work (the statue) free per Slovene laws, whereas the work of Vilhar (the fountain) will remain copyrighted until 2030 (1959+70+1). --Eleassar (t/p) 08:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Work of Bojan Frantar (born 1954). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for commercial use, therefore ineligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 22:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The sundial is work of Aleš Sotler from 1998. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, it shall not be used for economic gain, therefore ineligible for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The image I had created as well as being badly done is not correct, also now we have a correct and much graphics. Alexander VIII (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Work of sl:Maksim Gaspari, who died in 1980; therefore copyrighted until 2051.
- Also nominated for deletion: the derived work File:Berceau slovene.svg. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this old black and white image out of copyright or is it copyrighted by TimeLife? Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential source information Lymantria (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unknown whether Evaristo Dominguez died more than 80/70 years ago (it depends on the date of the painting) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree This image does not seems to be painted in the XVI o XVI centuries, by his style. Author and date of performing must be provided. --Bestiasonica (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: this article states that Evaristo Domínguez was alive in the 1950's Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore retouch and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Watermarks. Geagea (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
May still be under copyright. The original uploader got the photo from Find-A-Grave, as shown in the link. This is a copy of the photo with copyright marks for C.P.-Columbia Pictures. No information re: actual date of photo. We hope (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Want to note for the record that the person who last worked with the file was not the original uploader. We hope (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Although I uploaded the newer version, I still knew it may still be copyrighted. There is no excuse for concealing my thoughts; well, delete it, anyway. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't realize that the software notified you, George, as well. You're also not the original uploader of it. We hope (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Per license tag, there was no renewal, assuming that the image was ever formally copyrighted. A "may still be copyrighted" comment, without actual proof of copyright, goes directly against the "precautionary principle." A notice without a filing would keep it PD. And without a renewal it's still PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since when does Find A Grave offer copyright information on the photos uploaded there? This is where you indicated you got it from. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." We hope (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- If neither of you can find a renewal, where is the significant doubt? Based on the well-established law for such obvious publicity photos, given in the image description, there is significant doubt that it was ever formally copyrighted or ever renewed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nor is there a required date on the other copy found which would make it invalid in any case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
What about the visible copyright mark on the copy of the photo? There's also no date of publication other than your estimate to search the UPenn records for renewal. The burden of proof of PD is on the uploader. The soup just keeps coming. We hope (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Land in dem die Skulptur fotografiert wurde, steht nicht. Das wäre aber für das Anwenden der Panoramafreiheit essenziell. Heubergen (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no fop Polarlys (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Distorted pictures (to hamper search) in different styles without original exif, some of them marked as copyvio. Doubtful authorship.
- File:The Lady of Lebanon Harissa Jack Eid 1.jpg
- File:The Lady of Lebanon Harissa Jack Eid 3.jpg
- File:Our Lady of Lebanon Harissa Jack Eid 2.jpg
- File:Our Lady of Lebanon Harissa Jack Eid 1.jpg
- File:Our Lady of Lebanon Harissa Jack Eid.jpg
- File:Harisa Lebanon Jack Eid.jpg
- File:Lebanese Forces Flag Fouchno.jpg
- File:Martyrs Lebanese Forces 1.jpg
- File:Martyrs' Square, Beirut Lebanon 1.jpg
- File:Martyrs' Square, Beirut Lebanon.jpg
- File:Flag Lebanon Jack Eid.jpg
- File:Mar Charbel Jack Eid.jpg
- File:Rosary Jack Eid.jpg
Art-top (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of non-PD sculptures placed in a temple that dates to 2008 (w:ja:佛教之王堂). Per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, we cannot host them. None of the linked pages from the descriptions mentions a license compatible to the stated licenses. No evidence shows that the photographer is the creator of the depicted works.
- File:仏像彫刻 二十八部衆 風神雷神 念佛宗念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 観音堂脇床右面 兵庫県加東市 北播磨.jpg
- File:仏像彫刻 二十八部衆 風神雷神 念佛宗念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 観音堂脇床左面 兵庫県加東市 北播磨.jpg
- File:彫刻 邪鬼〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 山門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:栗 吽形 瓦②〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:栗 阿形 瓦②〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:栗 阿形 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:栗 吽形 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:阿弥陀三尊仏 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:カイチ（かいち）吽形 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:カイチ（かいち）阿形 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 奥の院唐門〜社寺建築仏教美術.JPG
- File:四猿 言わざる 瓦②〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 北門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:四猿 見ざる 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 北門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:四猿 聞かざる 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 北門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:四猿 言わざる 瓦①〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 北門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:四猿 知らざる 瓦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 北門〜社寺建築仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑪〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑩〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑫〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑦〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑨〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑧〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑤〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)⑥〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦 (製作用模型)④〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦③〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦②〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:飛天(天女)瓦①〜念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)総本山 佛教之王堂 社寺建築 仏教美術.jpg
- File:念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)佛教之王堂 山門上層天井画 老龍図.jpg
- File:念佛宗(念仏宗無量寿寺)佛教之王堂 山門上層天井画 鳳凰図.jpg
- File:白沢吽形 念佛宗(念仏宗)無量寿寺 唐門彫刻.jpg
157.82.193.31 08:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I have been unintentionally logged out while making this. Just wanted to mention that I'll be responsive regarding this nomination, if needed.--whym (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bukkyo-no-Odo
[edit]Derivative works of non-PD sculptures placed in a temple that dates to 2008 (w:ja:佛教之王堂). Per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, we cannot host them. None of the linked pages from the descriptions mentions a license compatible to the stated licenses. No evidence shows that the photographer is the creator of the depicted works.
- File:BukkyonoOdo-chokoku-gasso.jpg
- File:BukkyonoOdo-nioAh.jpg
- File:BukkyonoOdo-nioUn.jpg
- File:BukkyonoOdo-onogawara.jpg
- File:Cyoukoku01.jpg
- File:Cyoukoku02.jpg
- File:Cyoukoku03.jpg
- File:Cyoukoku04.jpg
whym (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
unused user images, out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not in Public Domain as claimed. This images were shot and published in 1948-1960
- File:이학구.JPG
- File:김익렬.JPG
- File:김좌진 건국훈장 대한민국장.JPG
- File:토벌대에 체포된 주민들.JPG
- File:이승만.JPG
- File:김영삼 학도병.jpg
- File:압록강에서 물을 수통에 담고있는 6사단 7연대 병사.jpg
- File:1960-04-18고대생습격사건.jpg
- File:혁명재판 사형수 최후모습.jpg
- File:이화룡.jpg
Robot Monk (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Screenshots from videos whose copyright status is unknown.
Jespinos (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshots, and not own work as claimed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Private images, likely for a web page. Out of scope.
GeorgHH • talk 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement materials for company with questionable notability. No evidence of permission.
- File:Spectrum Evergreen Award.jpg
- File:Evergreen Award New.jpg
- File:Evergreen Award.jpg
- File:Spectrum Sign.jpg
- File:Spectrum Plant Overview.jpg
- File:Spectrum Flex Tables.jpg
- File:Spectrum Laptop Cart2.jpg
- File:Spectrum Evolution Computer Furniture.jpg
- File:Spectrum mLT30 Laptop Cart.jpg
- File:Spectrum Industries Inc Logo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Posters of some kind. No evidence of permission. Also likely to be out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:6x3.jpg
- File:Nishith Sheser Aloy Phera movie.jpg
- File:30x40 Poster 1.tif
- File:Nishith Sheser Aloy Phera.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Grandmatador (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Promo materials. No evidence of permission.
- File:Affiche2 (A3).jpg
- File:11 copie.jpg
- File:Affiche-A3-Sept-2012-web.jpg
- File:5 copie.jpg
- File:JJRenaud RVB A3.jpg
- File:PHOTO Imprim jjr+samuel.jpg
- File:Montage DOJJRENAUD Jacquette FACEBOOK.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sisteladsas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sisteladsas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own work: all different sizes and qualities, no EXIF, some promo photos and band logos.
- File:Cahangir Rüstəmov.jpg
- File:Erkin Koray.jpg
- File:Apati.jpg
- File:Christian Larsson.jpg
- File:Obehag.jpg
- File:Tte.jpg
- File:TENHI snow-chair.jpg
- File:Wedard's drummer.jpg
- File:Sternenfrost.jpg
- File:Willem.jpg
- File:Urfaust.jpg
- File:Balnasar++Logo.jpg
- File:Nosophoros.jpg
- File:Whispering Solitude albomunun üz hissəsi..jpg
- File:Psychonaut 4.jpg
- File:Nocturnal Depression.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adnanpardesi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Priyanku.Phukan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Three of the photos have EXIF identifying a camera model, and from that it is possible to see that three different camera models were involved. The remaining images have no camera model in the EXIF. Uploader's talk page has many warning templates about copyright problems.
- File:Reba Phukan.jpg
- File:4 Brother's Kaziranga Elephant Safari 02.JPG
- File:Priyanku Phukan at brother Paul Phukan marriage in Guwahati, Assam 02.jpg
- File:Priyanku Phukan at brother Paul Phukan marriage in Guwahati, Assam 01.JPG
- File:Biju Phukan at Paul Phukan's Marriage Party.jpeg
Stefan4 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Should count as de minimis but this looks like some web thumbnail. -- 178.190.42.87 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:Gameboycolor.gif|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious internet image Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore retouch and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Should count as de minimis but this looks like some web thumbnail. -- 178.190.42.87 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work of Pokemon artwork as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:Gameboycolor.gif|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious internet image Denniss (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep To all of them: No reason for deletion. License allows removal of such watermarks. -- 178.190.42.87 08:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete All photos of the user are of low resolution; removing watermark from jpg will decrease quality again. User was notified about the deletion request. If there is no upload of a new version within the period of discussion, photos should be deleted. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Seems you were a bit too generic. This image does NOT carry a watermark, at least not on my screen. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my fault. I am sorry. Of course, this photo is not raising any complaints. I will remove the deletion request. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore retouch and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore retouch and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore retouch and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope, and personality rights issue. There was no rationale at all why it was kept in the previous deletion discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. There is little educative purpose or possibilty in this image. It is technically a poor image and the individuals rights are unclear. Richard Avery (talk)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikicommons request untagged Photos. However, this photography ioncludes a commercial tag of the photographer CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (nearly) all his uploads carry the same watermark, there is little doubt that the uploader is the photographer. In regard to the watermark: it can easily be cropped-away in most of his uploads. Therefore crop and keep. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader even after being informed makes no step towards cropping the photo or uploading a new version, I strongly recommend the deletion. Regarding the growing amount of watermarked photos in wikicommons, it is not a good idea to expect, that "someone" will take the time for doing that work. We also need to set a signal against the abuse of commons. Uploading watermarks is definetly an intentionally infringe on the provisions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: photographers right to use watermark Denniss (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Unusualsoul (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stefan4 as no permission.
Username is the same as the name of the homepage so its very likely, that they are the same. Homepage doesn't exist anymore so only definite proof would come by asking at the email given at his talk page. Amada44 talk to me 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I created this because at the time we did not have representations of Byzantine soldiers, now the problem is solved. And the drawing of me done wrong is no longer used in any wikipedia. Alexander VIII (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know copyright for this painting Wizikj (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think, it can be leaved. Wizikj (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Kept: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This map as well as being badly done is incorrect, the Byzantines no longer possessed Sardinia and Venice was almost to himself. Alexander VIII (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is solved this new image is historically correct in comparison to that in cancellation and graphically undoubtedly superior. I request the cancellation for this old file poorly done both historically and visually. Thank you. Alexander VIII (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This image may still be copyrighted, regardless. If MGM were the real proprietor... I don't know. Doubts still should linger in our minds. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Doubts still linger in our minds is not a rationale for deleting an image. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete:Doubt is enough for the Precautionary principle here. We hope (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Significant doubt" is required, not "doubt." The rationale gives nothing to imply that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was obtained from the LA Times website and while I believe they have credited their source correctly, there's no information there about the date when the photo was taken nor anything regarding its copyright. The uploader has provided only a timeframe estimate. His claim is that it was never copyrighted, but all we have is the LA Times cropped photo he copied. There's nothing to substantiate the timeframe estimate nor the never copyrighted claim of the uploader. We hope (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Significant doubt" is required, not "doubt." The rationale gives nothing to imply that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Image info appended to expand on timeframe and copyright status to eliminate claims of "nothing" for those. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That's still no proof when it was taken nor any re: copyright information. I've been removing that text from my older uploads. We still have:
- No timeframe as to when the photo was taken other than the uploader's estimate.
- No information as to its copyright status. We hope (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PRP not triggered here. Unlikely to have been published with a copyright notice, as explained on the file. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a person who died in 1994, obviously a scan from a printed source, unlikely to be "own work" as claimed. Was present on the web several years before the upload here (2008), e.g. this [4] webpage dated 2004, or this [5] one citing it in 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Good morning! You claim that I "unlikely" own this image; instead of discussing for your doubts at first, you immediately ask to delete this image. Regarding the two citations, the image can be added without changing the site timestamp. If you have a blogspot and modify something, the timestamp is not altered. Regards --ΝίκοςΠεν (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to webarchive, the photograph was already on that page when it was first created in 2004 [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
We'll need some proof that you are the photographer. What form of proof can you submit? (Since we don't know the source where it was first published on the Internet, OTRS won't help us here.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you want to send you a written confirmation with my personal information? Regards --ΝίκοςΠεν (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, please send it per the instructions at COM:OTRS, using a standard COM:CONSENT email form template. In the same email, it would help if you could explain when/how you published or otherwise disseminated the image, seeing that you are not the owner of http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/elder_paisios_mount_athos.htm, the earliest version we were able to find on the web. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It was confirmed the veracity of the author. The problem is that I can not confirm that the sender is actually the owner of the copyright, since the image is quite widespread on the Internet, taking up a book with the image as cover.+PrinceWilly 17:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, please send it per the instructions at COM:OTRS, using a standard COM:CONSENT email form template. In the same email, it would help if you could explain when/how you published or otherwise disseminated the image, seeing that you are not the owner of http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/elder_paisios_mount_athos.htm, the earliest version we were able to find on the web. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The OTRS does not cover the issues here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis -- 178.190.42.87 08:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:N64 Pikachu.jpg|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Whatsitnow (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis -- 178.190.42.87 08:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whatsitnow as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of Nintendo's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, components of product are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction|subpage=File:N64 Pikachu.jpg|year=2012|month=October|day=14 Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Im Buch von Hufnagl ist das Bild auf Seite 29 abgedruckt, allerdings wurde kein Urheber genannt. Somit kann der Fotograph nicht sicher 70 Jahre tot sein. -- Knergy (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Im Buch von Hufnagl ist das Bild auf Seite 220 abgedruckt, allerdings wurde kein Urheber genannt. Somit kann der Fotograph nicht sicher 70 Jahre tot sein. -- Knergy (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, damit der Seelenfrieden des Antragstellers wieder hergestellt ist. Auf WP-de darf das Bild ohnehin bedenkenlos wieder hochgeladen werden. --Steindy (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Im Buch von Hufnagl ist das Bild auf Seite 219 abgedruckt, allerdings wurde kein Urheber genannt. Somit kann der Fotograph nicht sicher 70 Jahre tot sein. -- Knergy (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, damit der Seelenfrieden des Antragstellers wieder hergestellt ist. Auf WP-de darf das Bild ohnehin bedenkenlos wieder hochgeladen werden. --Steindy (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
URAA Problematik Heubergen (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In order to keep it we would have to know that the photographer died before 1926 . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Copy of a modern mural. No FOP in Iran that would allow this so far as I know. MichaelMaggs 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So far as you know... All is said (Let me know exactly how much you know about that question?). Perhaps you could have started by a message on my discussion page instead of that.
- This picture is one of a public monument, Daniel's shrine is Shush (Susa), and not as you think, a modern copyrighted artwork. THE MURAL IS PART OF THE MONUMENT!!!!!!!!!!
- The picture is not a copy of the mural, but a scene with a women taking place at its front = not a copy in any way.
- I even cheked the agreement of the woman with the picture, respecting basic politness and correction manners in Iran
- Wether you want to be sure that the murals are not copyrighted, is nothing but a very easy process, you just have to mail to the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organisation (ICHTO) and ask it. Cultural Heritage News Agency, (ICHTO's press agency) can provide you the answer easier as their interface is in english: info@chn.ir
Pentocelo 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you feel like that. The legal issue with this picture is that in almost all countries photos of modern murals are copyright infringements, whether or not the mural is part of a public monument. The only, small, possibility is that Iran might have some Freedom of panorama rule which would allow it, in which case we should update the Freedom of panorama page. That will need someone to do some detailed research into Iranian copyright law. It would be great if somebody could show that local copyright law allows it, but I rather doubt that it does based on the rules in almost every other country. --MichaelMaggs 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no personal problem, but an issue wich being not sustained by any clear evidence of copyvio, might have deserved a discussion before a deletion request. Your argument is essentially based on a lack of info on the iranian policy (from your own saying), and imho on a misrepresentation of both picture and context. Concerning the 2 last items, as I pointed above, the picture is not a copy but a scene taking place in front of a wall, and the picture was taken into not only a public munument, but a religious and very sacred buiding. I doubt the fact that anyone could in Iran, claim any copyright on a place dedicated to God without being prosecuted for blaspheme (keep in mind that Iran is an Islamic republic, so, issues it's laws from religious rules). Concerning the first item, and specially this place (daniel's Shrine), I gave you the mail of the press agency of the ICHTO, state organism in charge of the gestion and management of the cultural/heritage/touristic places such as this one. Did you pay any attention to that? I mean: a clear and definate answer to your question can be earned easy by simply asking it there.... The true legal questioning there, lies all into the agreement of the woman with the picture, and I did check it as I always do in Iran (specially with womens). Last but not least, see for instance either this one, other and older version of the same wall (taken in 2005 loaded in 2006 in the commons), and Iran_and_copyright_issues (on en:wiki).Pentocelo 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: for the reasons given above. Pentocelo 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep : even if there is no Freedom of Panorama in Iran, I do not think that this mural falls under FOP rules, as it is basically an advertisement : see for instance Image:Advertisement Maggi Haiti.jpg for a similar picture. le Korrigan →bla 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Copyright issues are very loose in Iran, so basically, I don't think there's a problem with that mural. The mural here is part of the photograph, not the main subject (the picture represents a woman dressing the same way as advertised by the mural). I agree with all the issues underlined by Pentocelo in his second message. We can ask in Iran wether there's a copyright issue or not, but well just be losing time. That mural was ordered by the ministry of Culture and Islamic guidance (I'm almost sure for that) and as one of their attributions is to advertise for islamic rulings, they would not retain copyright on such murals. This is not the same case as if the mural was from a famous artist... Fabienkhan 10:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![73 File:"Sonu kumar, aurangabad bihar, sonu,jpg".jpg](#File:"Sonu_kumar,_aurangabad_bihar,_sonu,jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![80 File:"Only Helms Could Fix the U.N." poster IMG 4254.JPG](#File:"Only_Helms_Could_Fix_the_U.N."_poster_IMG_4254.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahneröffnungszug-(19061908).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:25:00.000Z-File:Danseuses_Africaines.JPG){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:26:00.000Z-File:Dardennor.JPG){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:34:00.000Z-File:Rocklamour.JPG){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:36:00.000Z-File:Rocklamour1.JPG){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:36:00.000Z-File:Danseuse_Africaine.JPG){kind=link}
-2012-10-14T11:37:00.000Z-File:Le_joueur_d'accordeon.JPG){kind=link}
![15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/14#c-EugeneZelenko-2012-10-14T15:44:00.000Z-File:"Sonu_kumar,_aurangabad_bihar,_sonu,jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/14#c-INeverCry-2012-10-21T01:01:00.000Z-File:"Sonu_kumar,_aurangabad_bihar,_sonu,jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![23:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/14#c-GeorgHH-2012-10-14T23:18:00.000Z-File:"Only_Helms_Could_Fix_the_U.N."_poster_IMG_4254.JPG){kind=link}
![01:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/14#c-INeverCry-2012-10-21T01:07:00.000Z-File:"Only_Helms_Could_Fix_the_U.N."_poster_IMG_4254.JPG){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E8%A6%B3%E9%9F%B3%E5%A0%82%E8%84%87%E5%BA%8A%E5%8F%B3%E9%9D%A2_%E5%85%B5%E5%BA%AB%E7%9C%8C%E5%8A%A0%E6%9D%B1%E5%B8%82_%E5%8C%97%E6%92%AD%E7%A3%A8.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E8%A6%B3%E9%9F%B3%E5%A0%82%E8%84%87%E5%BA%8A%E5%B7%A6%E9%9D%A2_%E5%85%B5%E5%BA%AB%E7%9C%8C%E5%8A%A0%E6%9D%B1%E5%B8%82_%E5%8C%97%E6%92%AD%E7%A3%A8.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%B1%B1%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%A5%A5%E3%81%AE%E9%99%A2%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%8C%97%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%8C%97%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%8C%97%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%8C%97%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%8C%97%E9%96%80%E3%80%9C%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%AA%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A9%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%AB%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A6%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A8%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A7%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A4%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A5%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6_(%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E7%94%A8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B)%E2%91%A3%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6%E2%91%A2%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6%E2%91%A1%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%93%A6%E2%91%A0%E3%80%9C%E5%BF%B5%E4%BD%9B%E5%AE%97(%E5%BF%B5%E4%BB%8F%E5%AE%97%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA)%E7%B7%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B1%B1_%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E7%A4%BE%E5%AF%BA%E5%BB%BA%E7%AF%89_%E4%BB%8F%E6%95%99%E7%BE%8E%E8%A1%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%B1%B1%E9%96%80%E4%B8%8A%E5%B1%A4%E5%A4%A9%E4%BA%95%E7%94%BB_%E8%80%81%E9%BE%8D%E5%9B%B3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99%E4%B9%8B%E7%8E%8B%E5%A0%82_%E5%B1%B1%E9%96%80%E4%B8%8A%E5%B1%A4%E5%A4%A9%E4%BA%95%E7%94%BB_%E9%B3%B3%E5%87%B0%E5%9B%B3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E7%84%A1%E9%87%8F%E5%AF%BF%E5%AF%BA_%E5%94%90%E9%96%80%E5%BD%AB%E5%88%BB.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg){kind=link}
-Lokalbahnzug-(1909).jpg){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahner%C3%B6ffnungszug-(19061908).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahner%C3%B6ffnungszug-(19061908).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahneröffnungszug-(19061908).jpg){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahneröffnungszug-(19061908).jpg){kind=link}
,-Bahnhof,-Lokalbahneröffnungszug-(19061908).jpg){kind=link}
_Wall_Painting.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The English translation of the Copyright law which was notified to UNESCO by the Iranian Government in 1970 can be found at here. It doesn't allow any exception for freedom of Panorama. Of course, a lot has happened in Iran since 1970, and it may well be that this law is no longer in force. I can't find anything more up to date, though W:Iran and copyright issues states - without quoting any source - that "In short, there currently are no laws in effect that protect the intellectual or proprietary rights of anything of Iranian origin." I will leave this to another Admin to close. --MichaelMaggs 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This file was nominated again in October 2012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daniel's tomb dressing code wallpainting.jpg and the result was delete. seb26 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran, also it doesn't seem to be a 30 years old work. ■ MMXX talk 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- See also the previous DR. ■ MMXX talk 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Our policy and information is that there is no FOP in Iran. This is certainly a DW of the mural. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
2D reproduction of likely copyrighted work. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I had took this picture and was uploaded for the Wiki loves monuments contests. It was taken from the Lothal site (comment by uploadeR)
- It seems this is a picture of a painting/drawing at the place (and a photo of that)? Because the drawing/painting is such a main topic in the photo, it becomes relevant what the copyright status is of the original painting/drawing. If it is a rather recent drawing/painting (less than 100 years old), then it may still be copyrighted, and a reproduction through a photo, like this, would not be allowed. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Land in dem die Skulptur fotografiert wurde, steht nicht. Das wäre aber für das Anwenden der Panoramafreiheit essenziell. Heubergen (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to a remark on the dewp: St Ingbert in Germany. "Die Plastik befindet sich im Öffentlichen Raum an der Stadtbibliothek St. Ingbert (Panoramafreiheit)" Edaen (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dann ist die Beschreibung falsch. Die Panoramafreiheit gilt in Deutschland nicht in Innenräumen.--Heubergen (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nö, ist sie nicht. Die Beschreibung sagt: Die Plastik befindet sich an der Stadtbibliothek. Daraus schließe ich, dass sie an der Außenwand hängt. Aber fragt doch einfach mal EPei selbst, bevor ihr hier herumrätselt. --Mogelzahn (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dann ist die Beschreibung falsch. Die Panoramafreiheit gilt in Deutschland nicht in Innenräumen.--Heubergen (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This has been open for three months and no one has told precisely where this is located. It looks to me like an interior wall with slots for mounting objects temporarily. Both "interior" and "temporarily" disqualify this from FOP. If it is actually permanent and outside, then it can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
this is just an autotraced SVG. we do not want such files here Antemister (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep SVGs can be corrected and redone. Fry1989 eh? 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- It obviously needs some cleanup, but I'm not sure it's egregiously bad (I've seen worse)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
low-quality duplicate of File:State Emblem of the Russian SFSR 1918.svg Antemister (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Some modern sundials in Category:Sundials in Slovenia
[edit]These two sundials seem modern and were probably painted after 1945. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, they're therefore ineligible for Commons until proven otherwise.
Eleassar (t/p) 23:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - lack of threshold of originality. --Sporti (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
ÄDA - DÄP (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- As indicated in source field: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Austria_crownlands.html
- Similar versions here: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ah.html
- I don't remember more, it's merely a vectorization of a GIF I found here back in February 2008.
- And, as I can read in Archduchy of Austria (OK, not a primary souce, but a good start):
- «In 1804, Emperor Francis II of Habsburg promoted his territories within the Holy Roman Empire together with his Kingdom of Hungary to the Austrian Empire in reaction to Napoleon I's proclamation of the French Empire; two years later Francis formally dissolved the defunct Holy Roman Empire. The Archduchy of Austria continued to exist as a constituent crown land (Kronland) within the empire although it was divided into Upper and Lower Austria for some purposes. The title of archduke continued to be used by members of the imperial family and the archduchy was only formally dissolved in 1918 with collapse of Austria-Hungary and the creation of the separate federal states of Lower and Upper Austria in the new Republic of German Austria.»
- --F l a n k e r (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no territorial entity within the Austro-Hungarian Empire using this flag that is called Archduchy of Austria. There are two crown lands: Lower and Upper Austria that form the Archduchy of Austria (Erzherzogtum Österreich ob und unter der Enns) neither of which used this flag. There is no reference to any changes in the flag design as suggested by the dates given in the name of the file. There is however the naval ensign (http://www.peter-diem.at/History/oe_marineflagge.gif) authorized on 20 March 1786 as worldstatesmen suggests. But there is no reference for the second date, 23 Dec 1894, or why it is significant.
- While I do not dispute the existence of the Archduchy of Austria nor the fact that one of the pages you linked above shows a similar flag with the caption 23 Dec 1894 - 11 Nov 1918 Archduchy of Austria, I can not find any reference to such a flag for that entity at any of the dates given.(see http://www.austria-lexikon.at/af/Wissenssammlungen/Symbole/Rot_Wei%C3%9F_Rot)
- Apart from that is the picture heraldicly incorrect as the hoops in the crown are not clear.
- ÄDA - DÄP (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to dispute the existence or not of the flag, it's not my interest, I simply vectorized an existing GIF (later deleted as in use at the time).
- Said that, I don't understand: what are the hoops? --F l a n k e r (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to check [7] at Wikipedia. A royal crown has five half-arches visible (of eight in total) in the continental tradition. The crown in this file has only three visible and something that looks like lilies to me, but I can't be sure. The jewels are not important in this design but the pearls are. ÄDA - DÄP (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see five... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- {{Sofixit}} -> Keep. Multichill (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Habe leider das falsche Bild hochgeladen: Richtiger Friedhof, erkennbar falscher Toter Diagram Lajard (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Falscher Toter, aber Peter Joseph Lenné ist auch relevant - man könnte das Bild doch behalten und auf einen passenden Namen verschieben? Gestumblindi (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ja, aber von dessen Grab haben wir schon bessere Bilder. --Diagram Lajard (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
