Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Copyvio: Screenshot of Google Maps Pompidom (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- As a clear copyvio a candidate for a speedy deletion. NNW (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - w:Abraham Omer Bar has also been proposed for deletion. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
—MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: both done - out of scope, advertising etc. Trijnsteltalk 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Picture from Charles Gos who died in 1949. Not free until the 1st of January 2020. Source for this picture. - Zil (d) 20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work Dereckson (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
My one mistake, it's the same as Swallow Reef4.jpg Minhminh284 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
My one mistake, it's same as Layang-Layang diving13.jpg Cnbhkine (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I am Sergio de la Puente and I am the owner of this picture; I gave permission to user Russavia to use any picture uploaded by me to the website airliners.net in november 8, 2011; that permission covers any picture uploaded by me only untill that date, not AFTER that date. This picture was uploaded after that day so I don't want it to be used here in wikimedia so please remove it right now!!! Kwii62 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See comment at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:SDLP Denniss (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am Sergio de la Puente and I am the owner of this picture; I gave permission to user Russavia to use any picture uploaded by me to the website airliners.net in november 8, 2011; that permission covers any picture uploaded by me only untill that date, not AFTER that date. This picture was uploaded after that day so I don't want it to be used here in wikimedia so please remove it right now!!! Kwii62 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See comment at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:SDLP Denniss (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am Sergio de la Puente and I am the owner of this picture; I gave permission to user Russavia to use any picture uploaded by me to the website airliners.net in november 8, 2011; that permission covers any picture uploaded by me only untill that date, not AFTER that date. This picture was uploaded after that day so I don't want it to be used here in wikimedia so please remove it right now!!! Kwii62 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See comment at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:SDLP Denniss (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am Sergio de la Puente and I am the owner of this picture; I gave permission to user Russavia to use any picture uploaded by me to the website airliners.net in november 8, 2011; that permission covers any picture uploaded by me only untill that date, not AFTER that date. This picture was uploaded after that day so I don't want it to be used here in wikimedia so please remove it right now!!! Kwii62 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: See comment at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:SDLP Denniss (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The copyright holder initially gave permission for the use of images he had uploaded to Airliners.net, which was forwarded to OTRS. The copyright holder has since been back in touch to state that it was only his intention to release those images which had already been uploaded to Airliners.net at the time of his email (8 November 2011). I'm nominating the four images explicitly mentioned in ticket:2012102010004891; if any other more recent images by this author have been uploaded, they should be deleted or added to this nomination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- This also includes:
- File:Peruvian Air Force Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29S (9-13S) SDLP-1.jpg
- File:Peruvian Air Force Mil Mi-25 SDLP-1.jpg
- File:Peruvian Air Force Cessna A-37B Dragonfly (318E) SDLP-1.jpg. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Even though the images are in use, and the permission is basically valid for all images, the small number of images we are losing makes it OK in my mind to delete (I'll find replacements I am sure). So delete, as a once-off exception. russavia (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted --PierreSelim (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot of an Apple product Sreejith K (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Logo of entity with questionable notability. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
unused low quality duplicate of File:Ruben Canelo 2.jpg INeverCry 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused small duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 16:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Stefan4 Denniss (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: recent upload, no need to keep Denniss (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This has in my opinion no meaning as redirect Wouter (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: was under this name for a year, therefore kept Denniss (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
First used in a Tom & Jerry short film from 1947. en:List of Tom and Jerry cartoons#1947 tells that there were 7 of them: Cat Fishin', Part Time Pal, The Cat Concerto, Doctor Jekyll and Mister Mouse, Salt Water Tabby, A Mouse in the House (can't find any renewal) and Invisible Mouse. At least 6 of them were renewed, and there's no evidence that this is from the 7th film. The characters probably had their character copyright renewed anyway. Stefan4 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete - at very least, a derivative of a copyrighted work, per COM:FANART. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Plagiarism picture. https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/471399057/7832_101105649910882_100000343423237_27845_2477499_n.jpg - Correcta-informacion (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Copyvio / no evidence of permission. Senator2029 22:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
All the global articles where this image was used have been removed for reasons of conflict of interest, shameless advertising and lack of notability. Whaledad (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Compare with File:Tony Samara, Portugal, May 2010.jpg: both clearly taken almost at the same time, from the same angle with the same camera. One uploaded by user:Sud Ram, the other by user:Pedro Bestler, both single-purpose accounts, both claiming this as their own work. Clearly one of them is lying. Whaledad (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
unused self image for self-promotional purpose. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Dubious claim of authorship by an account whose only purpose is to vandalize English Wikipedia Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - editor who uploaded it is blocked by the way for unconstructive editing, image seems to make fun of Jews by stereotyping them and portraying them as evil. --Activism1234 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whether the image is offensive is irrelevant; the problem is that the uploader almost certainly isn't the copyright holder. This cartoon has been around for a very long time—the uploader probably just pulled a copy from the web and posted it here so that it could be used to vandalize Wikipedia pages. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete as a copyvio. As this image is a widely available on the internet, the uploader's claim of authorship is highly unlikely. Senator2029 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted emblem. Sreejith K (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a British company. British law has low threshold of Originality. Sreejith K (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted website —Andrei S. Talk 07:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. —Andrei S. Talk 07:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
PD-textlogo, but no description. Out of scope? Yann (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – The file is from a website design company attempting to promote their work on Commons. Delete the file and the redirect. Senator2029 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Sreejith K (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Everything except the maple leaf is just simple geometry which fails to meet COM:TOO. The maple leaf is just a DW of the PD Canadian flag. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Merely text. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The source is from a newspaper website, so this picture must be copyrighted. Sentausa (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep – Part C of the license tag says it can be kept if "repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other sources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited." I have added the source, the date, and the photographer to file's description section. This documentation is sufficient to meet the "fully cited" requirement. Senator2029 23:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This photo was not published by the Indonesian government, but by the newspaper company Jakarta Post, so I believe it is copyrighted by the newspaper company or the photographer. The {{PD-IDGov}} licence tag is only for works published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia according to Article 14 item b of the Indonesia Copyright Law No 19, 2002. Note that in the tag, all items of Article 14 are shown, but only item b is relevant. Item c is irrelevant as in the official explanation of the law, news is limited as being in 24 hours after publication time (I'm sorry I couldn't find the English version, but if you understand Indonesian, the official explanation is here). Sentausa (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Sreejith K (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the source the image is from Televen. No evidence, that radiomundial.com.ve has the right to release the image under a free license. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Taken from a Government website, with no indication of the image being PD or released under a free license. I'll try to remember to also request deletion on uk.wp if this closes as delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.129.247 10:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected material from http://kucovaonline.webnode.com/historia-e-kucoves/ Albinfo (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of uploader is license-holder (composite of various individual images and text, need license release for all components not just the compositor). Same uploader has uploaded many mis/unlicensed images:( DMacks (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Non-free and/or no evidence of permission of license-holder (see Commons:Anonymous works) DMacks (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
To me, this looks like a derivative work of copyrighted photographs. El Grafo (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thumbnail on Facebook: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/623882_100000676560740_240230289_n.jpg Stefan4 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Painter en:Alfred Jonniaux died only in 1974. Thereby, his works are protected til 2044. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Restored after UnDR. The painting is of a USA Supreme Court Justice, made in the USA and is {{PD-US-no notice}}. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Painter en:Alfred Jonniaux died only in 1974. Thereby, his works are protected til 2044. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not even close to being legit, it must be quit.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: pure rubbish pdf. There is nothing decipherable - so there is no encyclopedic value for this. It could be anything 178.2.49.142 15:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment This file is part of a mass upload by the Slick-o-bot. There are many pdfs among them which are hardly readable. But basically these documents are within the Commons project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - employee of private security company - not a notable person INeverCry 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
unused redirect Rzuwig► 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Might be used by external reusers, for example by people using mw:InstantCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The author of the photo didn't respond to the emails about the copyrights. It's safer to delete the file. Bebauautu (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Modern architecture, built in the 2000s. No FOP in Ukraine. Jafeluv (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this logo is only simple shapes. No evidence this falls below the threshold of originality in Italy. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The image source (http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack/using-the-tpack-image ) says: You are free to use and reproduce this version of the image in your own non-profit works, including dissertations. This "non-commercial" restriction is not permitted on Commons. Senator2029 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ludwig Meidner is dead in 1966. Branor (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- And GuilGuil3 has added this image on a WP.fr article with the following legend "Source de l'image: http://users.skynet.be/bk212103/expressionnisme.html" ("source de l'image" is "image source") -- Habertix (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC).
Guilguil3 Edit: You can see more information here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Meidner and here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ville_apocalyptique! and 1913 is the date of creation of this
pictures !
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This stained glass window was designed by Gabriel Loire (1904-1996) who died less than 70 years ago. As this work is not in Public Domain, it can't be considered as free. Pymouss Let’s talk - 18:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
According to http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/5084109_5084675.html taken by Walter Frentz who died in 2004. 70 p.m.a. does not apply. Widerborst (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work, and it's also written: 'placard'. Eleassar (t/p) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No evidence for a Copyleft license High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.129.247 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sourced to :sl, where it was deleted due to badly cited sources. Unlikely own work. Eleassar (t/p) 20:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The attribution in the lower right corner states "Po Geografski atlas Slovenije" [Based on the Geographical Atlas of Slovenia], which was published by DZS and was not freely licensed, therefore copyvio and speedy. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unclear source of the data about borders; probably based on a non-free work. See also [1]. Eleassar (t/p) 20:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Albert Carvin (1875-1951) artworks are not in public domain. No freedom of panorama in France. 82.124.113.59 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Does not meet COM:SCOPE: Unlikely to have an educational purpose because it is unlikely to be an accurate logo of any long-term television station. Unable to find evidence that the station (presumably Canal 33 UHF, OAV-4Z, Lima, Peru) used a logo like this. Closeapple (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unclear source of data, possibly based on a non-free map. Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal pictures. Roberta F. (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
out of focus and there are better images of its type. Alan Liefting (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
posters only drawing; could be based on a photograph, making it DW. Vera (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We assume good faith unless presented with either evidence of copyvio or reasonable doubt (e.g. low-res, no-EXIF photo). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Also here (uploaded in 2006). The paintings are obviously made by user lempkesfabriek at netwerk.to who might be the same as User:Lempkesfabriek. However, see this post. He proves that one of the other paintings in the forum thread is a derivative work of a photo, so it is reasonable to assume that all paintings, including this one, are derivative works of paintings. This violates the copyright of the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, see also Special:DeletedContributions/Foster2012. Trijnsteltalk 22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Appeared here in 2007. Tagged as copyvio, but an IP user removed the tag, claiming own work. Replaced by "no permission" waiting for the IP to send permission to OTRS, but that tag was also removed. Still no evidence of permission. Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello again I was just wondering if you could help me do this OTRS process? I'm new and not sure what it entails. Please responds ASAP so we can clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.178.28 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T22:49:57 (UTC)
- You should follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am new and unsure about how to do this. I would appreciate your help Stefan4, as you seem to know what you are talking about. Please help me, because together we can make wikipedia great, again!. As an old editor with a new user like myself I know that we can make beautiful things happen, Stefan4.
- Stefan4! You may not just take down people's work or criticize it and then fail to adequately help a new user when they are making good faith revisions to articles! You cannot do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.178.28 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T23:04:47 (UTC)
- The file appeared outside Commons before it was uploaded here, so you have to somehow show that you are the photographer. Otherwise, the file needs to be deleted. It also appears on numerous other places on the Internet, some of them possibly earlier than the mentioned blog.[2][3][4][5][6] --Stefan4 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but you are making such a big deal out of it instead of making a big deal, try putting your efforts into helping me with this photo. Stephano4, you need to help me. You have to help me prove this.
- Please assist me ASAP, as I am new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.171.70 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T23:27:48 (UTC)
- I have no idea what evidence you may have that you are the photographer. All I can see is that you use an IP address associated with en:Purdue University, Indiana, USA and that the photo presumably was taken in a different part of the United States (Pennsylvania), since the subject of the photo worked at en:North Allegheny Senior High School in that state when the photo first appeared on the Internet. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please assist me ASAP, as I am new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.171.70 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T23:27:48 (UTC)
- Yes but you are making such a big deal out of it instead of making a big deal, try putting your efforts into helping me with this photo. Stephano4, you need to help me. You have to help me prove this.
- The file appeared outside Commons before it was uploaded here, so you have to somehow show that you are the photographer. Otherwise, the file needs to be deleted. It also appears on numerous other places on the Internet, some of them possibly earlier than the mentioned blog.[2][3][4][5][6] --Stefan4 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- You should follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could you answer a question about the image? Why is the image so small? When you take a photo with a digital camera, you usually get a much bigger copy, not just 108 × 122 pixels as in your case. For example (taking three examples from the 50 most recent file uploads to Commons):
-
3,264 × 2,448 pixels -
1,600 × 1,176 pixels -
3,648 × 2,736 pixels
.JPG)
- This small thumbnail can't be what your camera produced. There must be an original version of this image which is much bigger, right? Can you upload the original image somewhere for inspection? If you are the photographer, I would expect you to have access to the original image. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Flag invented obtained from a blog. MauriManya (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Flag invented obtained from a blog. MauriManya (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This file was uploaded with the false description "Bandera de Empalme Olmos" (Flag of Empalme Olmos), which it is not and is therefore confusing. Hoverfish (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Advertising or self-promotion. Silvio.dellacqua (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was uploaded with the PD-GI tag to the English Wikipedia,[7] but the tag was later deleted as misleading.[8] However, he left a message at his English talk page:[9] "I am the Institute's director and all my uploaded images have my special permisson to be used as my copyright template says." I guess an OTRS permission confirmation would be needed to keep this image (the e-mail is at his English user page); if it is not obtained, the image should be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Flickr washing - from the Google translation of the comments, this looks like a promo still for an iPhone game and thus contains likely containing copyrighted characters Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Check the url where this file came from. It doesn't violate any copyrights that you can upload in wikimedia. --관인생략 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the license on the Flickr page isn't Commons-friendly. My point is I don't think the owner of that page has the rights to use that license - see COM:QFI for a better explanation. Tossing the comments by com2us on the source Flickr page through the Google translate tool, I see this key chunk of text: "game features... Domestic for iPhone and iPod Touch player perfect Hangul support". This makes me think it's a game for the iPhone, and the overwhelming majority of games on mobile platforms are copyrighted. Tabercil (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's official flickr account of Com2us, so I'm sure that they know what copyright they were uploaded. Also, because it is not a screenshot of the game, I don't think this image affects the copyright of iPhone game. --관인생략 (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the license on the Flickr page isn't Commons-friendly. My point is I don't think the owner of that page has the rights to use that license - see COM:QFI for a better explanation. Tossing the comments by com2us on the source Flickr page through the Google translate tool, I see this key chunk of text: "game features... Domestic for iPhone and iPod Touch player perfect Hangul support". This makes me think it's a game for the iPhone, and the overwhelming majority of games on mobile platforms are copyrighted. Tabercil (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per official flickr account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Hadn't realized the account holder was the game publisher. I'll withdraw the DR. Tabercil (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per comments Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a modern 2D artwork, no Freedom of Panorama in Russia. A.Savin 09:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. The clock design is still under copyright in Switzerland: [10]. Jafeluv (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Question What kind of protection is it though? If it's a trademark or design patent, we don't need to worry about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. A representative of the SBB (Swiss Federal Railways) says here that the "SBB is the only holder of the station clock's copyright and trademark rights". The design does look very simple and I'm not sure if a court has ruled on its copyrightability, but the SBB at least seems to assert that it's copyrighted. Jafeluv (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What about FOP? --84.61.129.247 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as FOP and ineligible for copyright. Trademark rights do not matter here. --Leyo 11:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you're completely right. COM:FOP#Switzerland indicates that there should be no problem with the photo even if the design is protected by copyright. I guess I hadn't considered that possibility... Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question Exactly why did Apple have to pay for a licence for this design? It should be ineligible for copyright or covered by FOP in most countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- FOP would cover photographs taken on public places but not using the design for your own products, I imagine. Not sure about the threshold of originality in Swiss law, though. It's possible that Apple simply decided to play it safe and pay for the license instead of going to court to get a ruling on the design's copyrightability. Not that it really matters for us, of course :) Jafeluv (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Leyo. -- Common Good (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Better version at File:TLN Network.svg.png Fry1989 eh? 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom -- Common Good (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect license template. Sreejith K (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Different file uploaded over original. Keep old logo, revert back. -- Rillke(q?) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is the new coat of arms of the province of monza and brianza (www.provincia.mb.it) (february 2012). I took this image from italian wikipedia. Can We use it or must we change it with the coat of arms from the Araldica Civica web site http://www.araldicacivica.it/stemmi/province/provincia/stemma/?id=109 ?
Thanks! Simonemb (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (CEST)
- Excuse me, there isn't a license for this immage, but I'm a new User Wikicommons and I was not an expert. Deleted my image. Sorry and thank you very much! Simonemb (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2012 (CEST)
- Ok please deleted it. I thought it had the license. Sorry. Simonemb (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2012 (CEST)
Deleted: Deleted most recent logo. Kept the rest. Sreejith K (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF INeverCry 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF INeverCry 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF INeverCry 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Perfectly shot & cropped photograph from angle not usually accessible to the general public indicates that this is the work of a professional photographer. Very likely copied from the internet and a copyvio. Senator2029 22:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF INeverCry 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF INeverCry 01:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - no permission INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Senegal. Yann (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 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 Mattel's copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, action figures/dolls are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Yann (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 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 copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, 3D sculptures are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Yann (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rubin16 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: uploader and author - different people, no evidence of permission Yann (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- In ruwiki file was deleted. NBS (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo Sreejith K (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can show that Greece has a higher threshold of originality than many other nations (e.g., UK, Chile). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Invalid template. This one is just creating a template loop. Sreejith K (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Image isn't used anymore and contains embedded raster graphics. Raphael Frey (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
copy of it : File:PIA14763-MarsCuriosityRover-BathurstInletRock-CloseUp.jpg ComputerHotline (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
copy of it : File:PIA14762-MarsCuriosityRover-BathurstInletRock.jpg ComputerHotline (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This picture is published under regular copyright, not under CC or GPL. - Why it is uploaded to Wikipedia? 109.193.214.119 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Same image was posted at http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/aktmodell-blanka-nackt-im-kunstraum-fotostrecke-35103-2.html earlier. --whym (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this photo seems to be stolen from the website of the German newspaper Spiegel-Online, where they have a copyright note for DPA. (DPA is a commercial German press acency, I don't believe that they upload their pics for free under a fake account to Wikipedia.)--37.49.80.5 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This picture is published under regular copyright, not under CC or GPL. - Why it is uploaded to Wikipedia? 109.193.214.119 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per above. Same image was posted at http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/aktmodell-blanka-nackt-im-kunstraum-fotostrecke-35103-3.html earlier. --whym (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this photo seems to be stolen from the website of the German newspaper Spiegel-Online, where they have a copyright note for DPA. (DPA is a commercial German press acency, I don't believe that they upload their pics for free under a fake account to Wikipedia.)--37.49.80.5 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This picture is replaced by the better quality PNG-file Btv4u-studios.png 109.193.214.119 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
There is an SVG of this flag. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)\ Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Just another non-free Google search result. See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. - could be pd textlogo INeverCry 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jitrixis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.mairie-chailly-en-biere.fr/?page_id=49 INeverCry 19:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
low-res duplicate of File:Joseph Kittinger, Jr.jpg Antemister (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
it has been cropped. See File:Kunepig.JPG Alan Liefting (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markdencker (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional - 4 copies of same text logo in different colors - none used
- File:Yellow Designing Opportunities.jpg
- File:Black Designing Opportunities.jpg
- File:Green Designing Opportunities.jpg
- File:White Designing Opportunities.jpg
INeverCry 01:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Files uploaded to Commons for the purpose of advertising/promotion. Senator2029 22:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logos
INeverCry 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Files uploaded to Commons for the purpose of advertising/promotion. Senator2029 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Federico contreras (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a personal photo album, out of project scope.
- File:Bladimir Hernandez 04.jpg
- File:Bladimir Hernandez 03.jpg
- File:Bladimir Hernandez 02.jpg
- File:Bladimir Hernandez 01.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete – out of scope. Senator2029 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictures of the Lens railway station
[edit]Derivative works of a building designed by Urbain Cassar (1890-1979). France has no freedom of panorama:
- File:Gare de Lens-Grille.jpg
- File:Gare de LENS ( Pas de Calais, France) . LENS Station Railway.jpg
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (01).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (02).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (03).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (04).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (05).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (06).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (07).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (08).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (09).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (10).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (12).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (13).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (14).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (15).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (16).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens (17).JPG
- File:Lens - Gare de Lens.JPG
- File:Gare de Lens-Vue panoramique.jpg
Pictures in use can be uploaded at least to the French-speaking Wikipedia under the local 'recent buildings' fair use exception (see fr:Modèle:Bâtiment récent).
Also, these pictures are derivative works of mosaics created by Auguste Labouret (1871-1964):
Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Effacer de Wikimedia Commons et transférer sur la Wikipédia francophone. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Wikigivan
[edit]These files seem to be movie stills. --Blond (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Morindabioactivespalembang (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files look like commercials
- File:Defy idrus.jpg
- File:Morinda home tnj idrus.jpg
- File:Idrusmorinda.jpg
- File:Morinda bioactives palembang.jpg
Blond (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Gt logos
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Commons fair use upload bot as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Marked for deletion. PD-textlogo seems OK. Yann (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless it can be shown that Guatemala has a higher threshold of originality than Chile (the closest neighboring nation who we know about), Australia, and the UK. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alagarmurali (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/incomnsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Alagarmurali.jpg
- File:Samajwadi party meeting.jpg
- File:Tamil nadu samajwadi party.jpg
- File:Loganathan Yadav.jpg
- File:B.R.Damodaren.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PedrowvCintra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:Jeffree+Star+Beauty+Killer.jpg
- File:Beauty-Killer-Music-Video-jeffree-star-18417900-854-480.jpg
- File:Beauty Killer Video.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning ☼ (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Xuzhimol
[edit]Seems to be files with images of vehicles made by this company. As there is no EXIF data and the resolution of this images it seems more likely that they are copied from the previously mentioned company or elsewhere on the internet.
- File:Crawler excavator LGE230LB.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE230LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE280LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE300LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE330LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE400LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE440LC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator.jpg
Wiki13 16:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- He uploaded some more images with lacking of permision as seen in his contributions. --Wiki13 15:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Likely to be advertisement. No evidence of permissions.
- File:5-1b.jpg
- File:3-1d.jpg
- File:3-3d.jpg
- File:4-1b.jpg
- File:2-1-1d.jpg
- File:2-2-1d.jpg
- File:2-3-4d.jpg
- File:1-10d.jpg
- File:1-3d.jpg
- File:1-8d.jpg
- File:Concrete Truck Mixer.jpg
- File:ThCA9S0GKC.jpg
- File:Crawler excavator LGE210LC.jpg
- File:Backhoe Loader is a new wheel loader made in china Longji company and contains two diffrent Backhoe which can be uesed more widely.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In italian "retrocopertina" is the back of a Book cover, then is under copyright. Author was born in 1954 and is alive (not PD-Art). --151.67.221.115 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Neither his own work nor a photo. This painting was drawn by 许宝中& 李泽浩 in 1977 [11] --Daveduv (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 李澤浩 appears to be alive and 許寶中 died too recently. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Photo taken by someone else [12] --Daveduv (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Violates calligraphy copyright. The photo might pass as {{PD-Art}}. If so, undelete in 2027. I assume that Mao Tse-tung wrote his name himself. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Sshontu
[edit]- File:Narayan Gangopadhyay.jpg: [13]
- File:P C Sorcar.jpg: [14]
- File:Shakeel Badayuni.jpg: [15]
- File:Hasrat Jaipuri.jpg: [16]
- File:Indeevar.jpg: [17]
- File:Rajendra Krishan.jpg: [18]
- File:Poet lyricist Shailendra.jpg: [19]
- File:Anand Bakshi.jpg: can't find the original, but the EXIF data clearly shows it has been edited in Photoshop
- File:Kaifi Azmi.jpg: [20]
- File:Majrooh Sultanpuri.jpg: [21]
- File:Gumnaam original.jpg: [22]
- File:RDBurman.jpg: can't find the original, but the EXIF data clearly shows it has been edited in Photoshop
- File:Sachinbhowmickwi.jpg: [23]
- File:Subodh mukherjee.jpg: [24]
- File:Samir Ganguly.jpg: [25]
- File:Naktala.jpg can't find the original, but the EXIF data clearly shows it has been edited in Photoshop
- File:Pandav nagar.jpg: just text
These images are pencil sketch effect (Photoshop) derivatives of non-free images found on other websites. The uploader is not the copyright holder or creator of the original images, and therefore, has no right to release the derivatives under a CC license. --Utcursch (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Shares same title as other uploaded file. Sandbox101 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
both stated to be own work, but according to exif-data taken by different persons, so at least one of the two images is not own work
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Morning ☼ (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Photoshop DW painting or sketches from photos uploaded by Fcarcena01 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivative works from photographies. "dessin d'après photo" seems to mean a crayon conté Photoshop filter, and "peinture d'après photo" a fresco filter.
- File:Henri Barrio, peinture d'après photo.jpg
- File:Martin Denny, peinture d'après photo.jpg
- File:Stanley Black, peinture d'après photo.jpg
- File:Celso Gilberti, dessin d'après photo.jpg
- File:Émile-Robert Blanchet, peinture d'après photo.jpg
- File:Walter Wanderley, dessin d'après photo.jpg
- File:Mantovani, peinture d'après photo.jpg
- File:Percy Faith, dessin d'après photo.jpg
- File:Edmundo Ros, peinture d'après photo.jpg
Dereckson (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Axxelaxxel (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - underwear pics - professional looking underwear model pics - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:White sport brief.jpg
- File:Brazilian style swimwear.jpg
- File:Sport compression short.jpg
- File:Long boxer.jpg
- File:Men swim brief.jpg
- File:Men thong black.jpg
- File:Men white thong.jpg
- File:Mini boxer.jpg
- File:Low Cut White brief.jpg
- File:Unisex briefs.jpg
- File:White jockstrap.jpg
- File:Fly cotton boxer.jpg
- File:White brief.jpg
INeverCry 23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Compare File:Long boxer.jpg with the image found here. Note that the image has been flipped horizontally, possibly in an attempt to disguise the source. Can someone please delete all of this user's uploads and block them? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) above, all indications are that these are copyvios. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- See also File:Calvin Klein briefs.jpg uploaded by new user User:Kaustubh 88. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I seem to remember seeing these at the time and being suspicious, but having no solid evidence. I'm willing to go with COM:PRP here. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Contains personal information in the File History Comments Thollars (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Selectively Delete only the first text revision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept; deleted only revision containing personal information. A.J. (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
me confundi Vitoria69 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No source given for the borders, perhaps derived from a copyrighted work. And for the coats of arms and flags, I'm not sure they're all own work or even in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Greetings. I just added the source for the border, emblems and flags.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for having done so. Unfortunately, I don't find any information stating that [26] is a free work. It seems that a copyrighted map was used, which makes this work a derivative of a copyrighted work and therefore ineligible for Commons. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didnt take map from there, I just use their map as a source for borders on my map.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok.
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The International Sava River Basin Commission does not stand behind this photo and therefore requests its removal. VaKol (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This project is not property of the commission; the map is educational and well-sourced. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Nowhere is it claimed that Commission stand behind this photo. Frankly, I also think it is not the best map but I make it as useful tool (in accordance with my ability) and should be keep unless someone from Commission or some more experienced user with better equipment make a better map.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: I'm not going to delete a file which is widely used because someone doesn't like it and per Eleassar. Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The picture is not geographically correct, including both country names and borders. Description of the picture in summary is also not correct since not all the countries are the "members" of the Sava Commission. The .pdf file in the description does not contain this picture and yet it says it is the "map source". The Sava Comission would upload a proper map showing the basin overview but would still request deletion of this picture. Unfortunately, being easily available, this picture had been used in projects causing complaints to the Sava Commission. VaKol (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (original edit)
- Keep until we get a better map (preferably in the svg format). Though it may be incorrect at some places it is still better than no map at all. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (original edit)
- Comment Nomination and initial comment by Eleassar moved here from malformed nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sava River Basin.png. Links to original diffs are provided. Эlcobbola talk 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept. This map is widely used. It is Commons policy that maps that are in use may not be deleted for any reason other than copyright violation. The creator does not say that the image came from the cited PDF -- he says that the map was his own work (except for the COAs) and that he used the PDF as a source of information. The Sava Commission does not own the information in its PDF -- the copyright covers only the words used to express that information, not the information itself -- so the the Commission has no right to complain.
This is the second DR posted by User:VaKol on this file with no different reason from the first. Please do not post a third DR or take any other action with respect to this file. Once is OK, twice is a nuisance, and three times would be vandalism. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)No FOP in Senegal. Yann (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- We could crop the image so we just see a bunch of people standing around and posters. That way we still get a freely licensed pic out of it WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to the description the significance seems to be the fact that Maggi is advertised and the use of the French language. If you crop to the bottom half, all of that would be lost (the newspapers are illegible). So, I say Delete because of copyvio. Whaledad (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- What panorama do you see in this picture ??? cobra bubbles (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- What they mean is Commons:Freedom of panorama - If a country allows it, you can upload photographic copies of copyrighted artwork. In this case, an advert is "artwork" but Senegal doesn't have FOP, so a photo would be copyrighted by the person who made the artwork. Commons does not allow copyrighted works. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vituzzu as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: no educational purpose, maybe cyberbulling/joke Yann (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is fine for the scope. It could be use to show the clothes of communicants. However this is a derivative of the photo, this issue needs to be sorted out. Yann (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:DW. INeverCry 20:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Because it is not actually a work by Aubrey Beardsley but a fake. 79.243.251.130 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Any evidence for that? --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not beardsley's work, this is one of the known fakes. 82.2.188.206 08:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a well-known fake of Beardsley's work. 75.32.8.173 14:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not by Beardsley 84.173.75.191 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless actual evidence is given. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but when evidence is given that it's a fake or not, update the information using that reference. If appropriate documentation proves it's a fake (which I personally think is likely but I don't have the wherewithal to spend time proving), perhaps a small note in blue (or another color besides black & white) could be added to the image used in Wikipedia, with maybe a circle around the fake signature & a note beneath it such as, "Fake by Mr. Fakey," where Mr. Fakey equals the name of the forger. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per King of Hearts. INeverCry 20:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
PD-textlogo ok? It looks simple, but just to be sure. Yann (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, COM:TOO cannot compare with COM:FOP in depth or completeness, so there has to be some guesswork involved. I think in general if we know absolutely nothing about a nation's laws, we assume TOO to be comparable to US or slightly lower, but for Commonwealth countries I'd assume UK TOO as a default. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – As the file's description states, the logo is derived from ancient lettering and symbols. It is essentially a mashup (overlap) of two letters. The alphabet is something that is unquestionably in the public domain. (These symbols lost their "copyright status" centuries ago.) Rather than use Template:PD-textlogo we should apply Template:PD-ineligible. Also, I'm not sure how King of Hearts is applying COM:FOP, as this is not a photograph of an architectural work. Senator2029 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This nomination was based on observations provided by User:Pastern at [27].
Possible copyvio - judging by the low quality and the angle which is possible almost only by press and staff. The source information (投稿者祖父撮影ビデオ/2005年2月14日相続手続き完了により著作権譲渡 = inherited copyright from the uploader's grandfather on 14 Feb 2005, originally taken with his personal video camera.) looks dubious. whym (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and also Delete the other "inherited" photos per the Idobata discussion. This photo was not taken from a place open to the general public. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Info - I think I should have explained the rationale better (all is from User:Pastern's thoughts): this was taken in 1999, when personal video cameras were not that common, and not that good at zooming. If this was taken by a non-staff of the horse racing, it would have to be taken from the audience seats, from a long distance, and then it would be much more low quality than the uploaded one. The uploader was asked to explain how his/her grandfather took it, but has never responded for months. All these factors seem to indicate this was from a TV capture, which is non-free and not 'own work'. --whym (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep – The image itself shows other spectators with cameras taking pictures. They are at the same level and apparent distance from the horse as would be the photographer of this image. This clearly indicates dismisses the above "zoom/low quality" theory. The blurriness of the image could be caused by the: (A) type of video camera used; (B) record mode used by the camera; (C) type of videotape used to record; (D) degradation of the tape over time - depending how it was stored. Taking these factors into consideration allows for the possibilitiy—even the likelyhood—that the uploader's claims are true. And if so, the image is free and should be kept on Commons. Senator2029 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I find that the arrangement of the spectators in the picture is an evidence to deny the uploader's claim. This is recorded in a semi-circle shaped field of horse racing of a circumference of approximately 2 km, and the audience seats are located on only one side of the track. [28] If the camera man was in the audience seats with the other spectators, this angle was simply impossible. The fact that the spectators are depicted so closely shows that the camera man would either have been inside of the track, or have been on the opposite side of the track with no seats, using a camera with a unlikely good zooming facility. I'm inclined to think that the former option is more likely. --whym (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this and all those "grandfather's video" stuff: per Whym. Judging from the situation, I am quite in doubt if the uploader's grandfather was the actual copyright owner. Yasu (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete First,I appreciate User:Whym.I am not good at English,so I could not submit the deletion requests.What I want to tell is explained by User:Whym. It is impossible to take this photo from a place open to the general public.--Pastern (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per consensus. INeverCry 20:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Denniss as no permission (no permission since) INeverCry 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a photo of Albert Bierstadt, but who took the photo and when was it taken? {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-1996}} require that the photo was published, but there is no evidence of publication. The photo is credited to "Sarony, NY." Is Sarony a person or a company? {{PD-US-unpublished}} requires creation before 1892 or death of photographer before 1942, but there is no evidence of either. Also, is the source country the United States or Germany? If the photo is German, you also need to find a reason for it to be in the public domain in Germany, in addition to the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- the carte de visite photo on the referenced link is "Sarony 680 Broadway" i.e. w:Napoleon Sarony, w:New York City. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then it is fine in my opinion. The photographer died more than 70 years and the photo was taken before 1923. I would assume that most photos either are published shortly after they were taken (i.e. {{PD-1923}}) or that they remain unpublished forever (i.e. {{PD-US-unpublished}}). There's the possibility that this might have been published for the first time between 1923 and 2002 in which case it might still be copyrighted in the United States, but without any indication of that, I think that it would be safe to assume that the photo is in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- you of course understand that the w:Carte de visite was a calling card given away to all and sundry. is this not publication? why would someone make a calling card and not give it out until after their death? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I missed that part. Yes, I'd assume that's publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- i agree with you it is confusing when we try to force fit stuff into the "publication" bucket, and there's no pub. date on a title page. we do have a problem with these CDV's that are collector's items, like signatures, but would add much value to biographical articles. only some of them are in archives and clearly marked PD. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the source country is the United States, I think that it is enough to try to determine the age of the paper (if you have access to it). If there is no date and the paper looks older than 1989, then the photo is {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-US-defective notice}}, if nothing else. I don't think that the 5-year option of copyright registration (for 1978-89 works) ever was used for a product like this. However, if the source country isn't the United States, then the image may be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, which makes things a lot more difficult. --21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- you just agreed to publication during subject's lifetime (died 1902) hence PD-1923. in addition photographer died 1896 hence PD-100 (doesn't matter if published or unpublished). no, this disputed permission is about the derivative scan of the CDV by an auction house, where the copyright terms are all screwed up. i submitted an email to OTRS, please don't continue to take down the OTRS pending, until it is confirmed. if denied, i can always upload again; submit another email. perhaps you would care to fix the copyright, explain it to the auction house yourself? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- the kind otrs folks suggested PD-art: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- you just agreed to publication during subject's lifetime (died 1902) hence PD-1923. in addition photographer died 1896 hence PD-100 (doesn't matter if published or unpublished). no, this disputed permission is about the derivative scan of the CDV by an auction house, where the copyright terms are all screwed up. i submitted an email to OTRS, please don't continue to take down the OTRS pending, until it is confirmed. if denied, i can always upload again; submit another email. perhaps you would care to fix the copyright, explain it to the auction house yourself? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the source country is the United States, I think that it is enough to try to determine the age of the paper (if you have access to it). If there is no date and the paper looks older than 1989, then the photo is {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-US-defective notice}}, if nothing else. I don't think that the 5-year option of copyright registration (for 1978-89 works) ever was used for a product like this. However, if the source country isn't the United States, then the image may be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, which makes things a lot more difficult. --21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- i agree with you it is confusing when we try to force fit stuff into the "publication" bucket, and there's no pub. date on a title page. we do have a problem with these CDV's that are collector's items, like signatures, but would add much value to biographical articles. only some of them are in archives and clearly marked PD. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I missed that part. Yes, I'd assume that's publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- you of course understand that the w:Carte de visite was a calling card given away to all and sundry. is this not publication? why would someone make a calling card and not give it out until after their death? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then it is fine in my opinion. The photographer died more than 70 years and the photo was taken before 1923. I would assume that most photos either are published shortly after they were taken (i.e. {{PD-1923}}) or that they remain unpublished forever (i.e. {{PD-US-unpublished}}). There's the possibility that this might have been published for the first time between 1923 and 2002 in which case it might still be copyrighted in the United States, but without any indication of that, I think that it would be safe to assume that the photo is in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- the carte de visite photo on the referenced link is "Sarony 680 Broadway" i.e. w:Napoleon Sarony, w:New York City. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ART and PD-OLD. I don't see a problem. INeverCry 00:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, as the creator:Napoleon Sarony died in 1896 and this image is only a two-dimensional reproduction. --32X (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio. Logo of a corporation. Burpelson AFB (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The "R" uses a modified font. See Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos and since the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom is very low. odder (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work. --Liftarn (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for 2D according to COM:FOP#Israel (assuming Israeli copyright law is valid in the West Bank). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Again familiar all faces! What an irony to suggest that hamas poster is protected under Israel copyright low.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The photo of Gilad might be protected. Then, the poster itself and also a reproduction of it is a derivative.--Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Mbz1 --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Questions: Do Hollywood movie posters enjoy copyright protection under Israeli law? Does Israel support the theory of equality under the law? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pieter, I am afraid my English is not good enough to understand what is the connection between Hollywood movie posters ,Israeli law, hamas poster, Palestinian National Authority under which jurisdiction Nablus (where the image was taken) is.I am afraid I also do not understand what did you mean under "Does Israel support the theory of equality under the law?" If I were not afraid that you'll report me to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, I would have said that yes, Israel supports the theory of equality under the law, For example Palestinian women, who are the citizens of Israel, have much more civil rights than women in Arab countries, but because I am afraid that you will report me on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, may I please ask you to assume that I said nothing of the kind. (I retract my words right now :) ). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Questions: Do Hollywood movie posters enjoy copyright protection under Israeli law? Does Israel support the theory of equality under the law? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll say Keep for now since I am doubtful that Israel copyright law applies in territory governed by the w:Palestinian National Authority and I am not aware of what the copyright situation is in Palestine. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, this IS covered under their FOP (assuming they use Israeli law), since it specifically allows "applied art". ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_SDLP-1.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.svg){kind=link}
_logo.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_logo.svg){kind=link}
_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bassa_veronese_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Si-4geographic-regions.jpg){kind=link}
_._LENS_Station_Railway.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[13]](http://images10.bookadda.com/images/bk_images/370/9788172930370.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_j0Xrjmjgzo/T8mZc04vH5I/AAAAAAAAA5Y/alNLp8fTLqw/s1600/100.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.hummaa.com/static_content/images/meta/img/artist/shakeel-badayuni.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-61yGA1jXTCs/T5mIMxuYZfI/AAAAAAAAAaA/Bjhsr8FXc_8/s1600/Hasrat+Jaipuri+(allkaraokehere.blogspot.com).jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.hindilyrics.net/profiles/pics/indeevar.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.downmelodylane.com/lrc_files/rajendrak.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.google.ca/search?q=shailendra&num=10&um=1&hl=en&imgrefurl=http://manishkmr.blogspot.com/2009/06/sajan-re-jhoot-mat-bolokya-shailendra.html&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jVgHE75aHrs/SiwWvhYlD3I/AAAAAAAACQc/0EmXob-GbEk/s400/shailendra.jpg&w=217&h=278&sig=114568857710142366698&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAESHwluuB_1hZsiorRoLCxCo1NgEGgIIFwwhHjDYIkdWdq0&sa=X&ei=g8B9UNrUCNH8yAGtgoH4BA&ved=0CAQQ0gU&biw=1600&bih=791){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.hindilyrics.net/profiles/pics/kaifi-azmi-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.downmelodylane.com/lrc_files/majrooh_main.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BurC6enfE8U/S_k6ZziyE_I/AAAAAAAACME/SjmcYWj7LJI/s1600/gumnaam.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://hindi.way2movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/13sachinb.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive/pix/slideshow/01-2012/in-pics-bollywoods/mukerji-jan24-3_400.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](http://www.zimainstitute.com/Data/Sites/5/skins/ZIMA-skin/files/image/samir_ganguly.jpg){kind=link}
- A 2D poster is not what is meant by en:Applied art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Posters like these unfortunately seem to be of function and everyday use over there ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- A 2D poster is not what is meant by en:Applied art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep until the copyright law under the Palestinian National Authority is investigated further. --Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- comment - It would be a real shame to lose this one. WP needs more propaganda art. Suggest Mbz1 phones up Hamas and asks them nicely to release it under CC... Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- A good one, Sean.hoyland :) BTW I believe this deletion request should be closed. After all it has been discussed since January. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found a better-than-nothing master of law thesis A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. Unfortunately I blacked out and banged my head on the desk shortly after starting reading it. Others may be able to get further through the document. Sean.hoyland (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- A good one, Sean.hoyland :) BTW I believe this deletion request should be closed. After all it has been discussed since January. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it isn't possible to consider the poster as de minimis. Ralgistalk 02:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment No, not de minimis, and not under freedom of panorama either, from what I understand of the undeletion discussion. Some people in the previous deletion discussion seem to have made a different argument, similar to that for graffiti - that the author's actions are unlawful and so they would find it difficult to enforce any copyright they might hold over the image. --Avenue (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why this image is a candidate for deletion. I believe everything stated above is as it stands. Keep. Dinkytown (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment various photos of West Bank posters uploaded by me had been deleted, such as File:Bethlehem-pflpmartyr.JPG, File:Qalqiliya-alfposter.JPG, File:Bethlehem-plfelectionposter.JPG, Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Bethlehem-fatahmartyr.JPG, Bethlehem-independentcandidates.JPG. If this poster could be undeleted, so should all of these. Or this one be deleted again. --Soman (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept Under Israeli law, per the interpretation of what appears to be Israel's top copyright lawyer, FOP covers both 2D and 3D artistic works in a public place as long as they are meant to provide information, and these posters comply. There does not seem to be an extant text of Palestinian copyright law which we can peruse for a ruling, and none of us are legal authorities in either area to make a precedent ruling as to what version of UK law may or may not apply. Further, whether Israeli law or Palestinian law (which in this case does not seem to exist( applies in these areas is a matter of both hideous political debate and confusion. As such, the clearest indications are that this image, and those like it, are acceptable, and should be kept until proven to be in violation of a specific statute. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep See above. Also, this doesn't look like it's intended to be temporary. Such posters are attached once and left there until they're destroyed. Nobody would assume they're removed after e.g. 2 weeks, like on billboards. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per comment and previous kept decision. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (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 copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, toys and figures are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction Yann (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- It was the case of much more image, however most of them are now deleted.
(Deletion log); 19:15 . . INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Igráček.jpg(Derivative work as per COM:DERIV, infringement of copyright by virtue of copying via photograph, toys and figures are legally protected as artistic works as per COM:CB, should be deleted to prevent further use and reproduction)
- Therefore, please, keep in mind when this deletion request will be over, that you have apply the result in already deleted cases too. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am not exactly sure about the case, but I would say it needs to be evaluated whether the toy is “artistic” enough to be protected by copyright, or whether it is just a purely functional design. (Cf. “the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article” – 17 USC 101.) --Mormegil (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not a non-trival logo as claimed, there are clear artistic elements in the image shown. Enwiki Duplicate here w:File:Opekta.jpg is tagged as non-free. Source listed - http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?pid=113&lid=2 appears to be a dead link. The site concerned generally claims '© Anne Frank Stichting' - EU copyright terms are life+70 so the logo design may still be copyright in EU countries. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep anonymous pre-WWII. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Non-trivial logo, no indication of being in the public domain. Logo not "anonymous" (we don't know who the author is, that doesn't make it anonymous. Anonymous works are marked as such). "Pre-WWII" is irrelevant, the author could concievably even still be alive. Rama (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Getty gives a 1933 date for this, apparently on the authority of the Anne Frank Foundation. Otto Frank probably just ordered this at an advertisement agency. Probably even he never knew who made this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymous work with expired copyright. -Nard the Bard 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
faulty license Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So change it! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - license changed - Jcb (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Author: w:Otto Frank Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I realize this was nominated before but this reasoning was never addressed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but I don't understand you. How do we know that Otto Frank is the author, and why does it matter? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because he was the owner of the company, he is quite likely the author. And it matters because this would make it unfree in Germany until 2051. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Though it still doesn't really matter that he's the author, because if we don't know, we always have to assume the worst. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess in retrospect, it might have been a work for hire by an anonymous individual, but it also might not have been. Even if it is anonymous, the question becomes, when was this item first published? We'll want to use Dutch law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The text is in Dutch, not German, so the country of origin is possibly the Netherlands instead. Not sure if this affects the definition of "anonymous work". In Germany, the rule seems to be that a work isn't anonymous if the identity of the author has been made available to the public by anyone, but in the EU directive, it says that a work is anonymous if the identity of the author hasn't been made available to the public by the copyright holder. Germany uses the old terms for old works, but I don't know what terms the Netherlands use. Also, hm, would it be possible to identify the author by, for example, looking at old lists of employees, or by reading old taxation documents? Are such documents made available to the public within 70 years after publication? I suppose that it could affect whether the identity of the author has been made available to the public. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess in retrospect, it might have been a work for hire by an anonymous individual, but it also might not have been. Even if it is anonymous, the question becomes, when was this item first published? We'll want to use Dutch law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Though it still doesn't really matter that he's the author, because if we don't know, we always have to assume the worst. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because he was the owner of the company, he is quite likely the author. And it matters because this would make it unfree in Germany until 2051. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Various photos of puppets
[edit]- File:SatyaSonali.JPG
- File:SatyaShekhar.jpg
- File:SatyaKirron.jpg
- File:Satyajitphoto.JPG
- File:Satyafamily.JPG
- File:Satya.gif
- File:RamdasLijjatPapad.jpg
- File:AamirRamdasPuppet.jpg
- File:ChotuSingh&Satyajit.jpg
- File:PhoonkPuppet.jpg
- File:PoliticanPuppet1.jpg
- File:PreityRamdas.jpg
Puppets make up a non-negligible part of these images. See COM:TOYS. In some cases, it may be reasonable to crop out the puppets and keep the rest as a photo of the people on the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- All images have been uploaded by User:Ilovemuppets and User:Satyajit83 on en wiki. They have also edited the concerned en wiki articles extensively. My guess is they are either the subject or in close relation with the subject. Would an OTRS email of some sort solve the problem? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Puppets generally aren't toys, except for the sock-sized versions, and the page you link doesn't discuss puppets. Either you need to explain why they're otherwise able to make these images nonfree derivatives, or you need to supply another deletion rationale. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's generally the same thing. Both thumbnail-sized paintings and giant paintings get copyright protection. I don't see why the size of the puppets would matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The architecture is work of sr:Momir Korunović (architecture; died in 1969). Frescoes are work of Dragomir Jašović and Mišo Mladenović, both still living. There's only non-commercial FOP in Slovenia, the images are therefore ineligible for Commons and should be deleted.
- File:Cveti 4.JPG
- File:Fresco Orthodox Church Ljubljana.JPG
- File:Kupola crkve.JPG
- File:LJ Pravoslavna cerkev.JPG
- File:Ljubljana serbian-orthodox-churc.jpg
- File:Pravoslavna cerkev v Ljubljani 1.jpg
- File:Pravoslavna cerkev v Ljubljani 2.jpg
- File:Pravoslavna cerkev v Ljubljani 3.jpg
- File:PravoslavnaCerkev-Ljubljana.JPG
- File:SRB cerkev v Ljubljani.jpg
- File:SRBCrkva 2.JPEG
- File:SRBCrkva 3.JPEG
- File:SRBCrkva.JPEG
- File:SRBCrkva.JPG
- File:Srpska cerkev lj0001.jpg
- File:Srpska cerkev lj0002.jpg
- File:Srpska cerkev lj0003.jpg
- File:Sts. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Church, Ljubljana (2).jpg
- File:Sts. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Church, Ljubljana - Jesus.jpg
- File:Sts. Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Church, Ljubljana.jpg
- File:Sv Ćirilo i Metodije u Ljubljani.JPG
- File:Čirilo i Metodije HDR.jpg
- File:Арханђел Гаврило.jpg
- File:Хорос.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The external architecture can be undeleted in 2040 (i.e. 70+1 years after the death of Korunović). Eleassar (t/p) 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Church belongs to park Tivoli...as such opted-out. --Mile (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even if it does, the copyrights still belong to its authors unless there was some agreement with the City Municipality of Ljubljana to transfer the copyrights onto the municipality and the municipality allows the reproduction of the church for any purpose, which you would have to prove with a reliable source. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any reason why there are many emblems and logos are pictures and I see no reason for this to be deleted. I am against deleting these files. --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- So am I. I think a general solution for panorama issues of Slovenia should be found. But in this case, maybe just a general permission by the Ciril-Metod parish (the priest or the parochial church council) could help, it would be the best. -- PhJ (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you should contact the parish where the church is located. It's a little stupid to delete these images. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to keep these images, you should contact the copyright holders. For the frescoes, I presume these are Mr. Dragomir Jašović and Mr. Mišo Mladenović. For the architecture (building), I presume these the heirs of Mr. Korunović. Then you should pass their scanned written permission or their received e-mail to the OTRS team, as described at COM:OTRS. Please read this OTRS page before sending any request and follow the instructions there. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It is best for me for everything, all the priests personally contacted via email and the staff of the church. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Since when Byzantine type church is copyrigthed, and by whom ? Its made for community. --Mile (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- All architectural and other art works are copyrighted per default, unless stated otherwise in the Slovene copyright act. As long as there is no OTRS permission by the copyright holder (as described above), these images are (unfortunately) not free for Commons. You may upload images of architecture freely to the English Wikipedia using the en:Template:FoP-USonly tag. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Does SPC belongs to that jurisdiction ? It belongs to SPC. Embassyes dont undergo that kind of law. --Mile (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
SPC is also part of cultural heritage : http://www.siol.net/kultura/novice/2010/03/pravoslavna_cerkev_ljubljana.aspx
--Mile (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- The church is not officially recognised as an embassy, no matter who is the owner. Even if it would be, there is no clause in the copyright law or elsewhere that would make the buildings of embassies FOP-exempt. It is true that it is part of the cultural heritage, but this also has no legal effect on its copyright status. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Does not look too simple to be out of copyright. Raising a DR to confirm. Sreejith K (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - see also File:BNT.png and other images in Category:Television of Bulgaria. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see File:БНТ.png. The logo just contains the bulgarian letters "Б", "Н" and "Т" juxtaposed together, so I think it's OK for a text logo.--The TV Boy 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
