Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive October 18th, 2012
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lizenzänderung. Soll nur auf deutschsprachiger Wikipedia erscheinen. Claudia von Fuchs (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Seems to be copied from a JCPenney advert; no evidence that uploader is owner bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mathonius (talk · contribs). This request is now redundant. bobrayner (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Seems to be copied from a JCPenney advert; no evidence that uploader is owner bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mathonius (talk · contribs). This request is now redundant. bobrayner (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

see [1] Pseudoanas (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Some doubt whether this image, which is also found at http://www.ramonlapayese.com/bio.htm, is own work of uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: As per email discussion with uploader: no permission available and uploader wants it deleted too. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Petrstep (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of my brother and he does not want to be published on the internet Iam the uploader Petrstep (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low resolution, unused personal image. Unlikely to be of use. David1217 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I cannot tell which of the two license templates is supposed to be the correct one, but I suspect that none of them are, and that this picture is copyrighted. Liliana-60 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Dharmadhyaksha as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: scanned from newspaper (as stated in source). Also backside printing visible in sky. copyrights unclear. Sreejith K (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The pixelation seems to indicate that this is a reproduction from a magazine, rather than own work. Lymantria (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

false upload Jener13 (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image is copyrighted 139.130.80.18 06:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per initial description image is a "Still from a film", thereby unlikely the uploaders own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image previously published at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2085641/mediaviewer/rm3636875776. Unclear authorship Ytoyoda (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I am sorry, but artist Notker Becker died only in 1978 and the country, where this work is located, has no usable FOP exemption. Thereby, this photo violates the copyright of the original artist.
3 days ago I had asked the head of Maria Laach abbey, where the artist had lived, for permission, but haven't received a reply so far. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I am sorry, but artist Notker Becker died only in 1978 and the FOP exemption of Germany, where this work is located, does not cover works inside buildings. Thereby, this photo violates the copyright of the original artist.
3 days ago I had asked the head of Maria Laach abbey, where the artist had lived, for permission, but haven't received any reply so far. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:



Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't believe this is own work. The watermark shows Foto: Emilio Quesada. No meta data Wouter (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Work of Ferenc Kiraly (born 1936), erected in Radenci in 1969. Proposed for deletion per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 07:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image seems to violate the copyright of the photographer of the movie poster photo and Commons:FOP#Philippines has no FOP exemption. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Don't believe own work. many hits on Google images, only contribution of user, no meta data, watermark of bharatstudent.com Wouter (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose Poor quality image, eg aircraft not identifiable by manufacturer/type, and event is adequately covered by existing better images. PeterWD (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Modified image. Possible copyvio. As per upload history of user and lack of metadata Vssun (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

probably stretched and rotated image from here. Please note the dot on top left area.--Vssun (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Questionable "own work", appears to be copyright vio as it looks like a screenshot from the said drama. Doubtful that uploader had access on set to produce this professional quality work. If so would like to see original EXIF data of images with details of when, where etc photos were taken. Uploader previously had 3 copyright vio image of the same subject deleted. Michaela den (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Text document. Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use. Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I have my doubts as to the educational value of this image, and accordingly whether it is in scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't believe this is own work. Watermark MaxHardcore.com, no meta data and many hits of Google images Wouter (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

is this covered by COM:FOP or a copyvio? Vera (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Its covert by German FOP if its taken outdoor, and lit looks like outdoors. --JuTa 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: INeverCry 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't believe this is own work. No meta data and many, many hits with Google images Wouter (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.233 11:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
And File:Maniquies - Rastro 01.jpg

These maniquins could be considered 3D sculptures Vera (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It looks like this painting is only temporarily displayed outside, which would mean it isn't covered under COM:FOP. The description says it is based on another painting, which was previously deleted Vera (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks as if this might be a derivative work of several copyrighted coats of arms on Italian Wikipedia, e.g. it:File:Stemma-araldico.jpg. The text banner, the hat, the crucifix and the green things to the left and right seem to be the same. Stefan4 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Overwritten file: two in one. Only the current revision is nominated for deletion, not the initial revision. The current revision incorporates material from [2]. For example, the hat and the ropes are identical. Stefan4 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Captura de pantalla de una obra con copyright. Copyvio obvio. Rondador (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Professional looking picture copied from the official website: sergeyrakhmanin.com. Doubtful that it is free. Badzil (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It is very likely that this sculpture is only brought outside during easter, making it not covered under FOP, and thus a copyvio Vera (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It doesn't become clear from the description how old these portraits are Vera (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guy on the right photo was born in 1900. He does look much older than 40 on this image. sугсго 15:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It looks like this is indoors, making it not a FOP case and thus a copyvio. Vera (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal photo, therefore out of scope. Only contibution from this editor. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This appears to be a poster. I doubt if it is actually "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.233 15:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

What new could be added to Category:Human penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bâtiment de 1974 (confer http://front-national-11.over-blog.com/article-le-fn-visite-la-prison-de-nimes--43009177.html par exemple), donc l’architecte n’est vraisemblablement pas mort il y a plus de 70 ans. Nemoi a parlé le 16:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

seems copyrighted text in the watermark Effeietsanders (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope, personal image used for non-notable bio on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very small, very bad quality; too many another photos of this object with a much better quality. -- Kaganer (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No proof of lack of copyright or non-renewal. We hope (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Author and source are not uploader. There is no indication of permission. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No proof it's PD-US. We hope (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website it was taken from has a copyright notice: "Copyright ©2012. A Certain Cinema. All rights reserved." The site dates the photo as being from 1937 and there are marks at lower left suggesting the photo was taken for a film. As per en.WP Filmography for her, we see three films for 1937. According to their en.WP pages, all were done in the UK, so there's also a question re: UK copyright. We hope (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The text of this exhibit is probably still under copyright, therefore this is a derivative work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file lacks proof of permission. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Original research (see [3]). The image depicts a non-existent subject. The image is not in use anywhere anymore. Eleassar (t/p) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

appears to be original research —Eustress talk 18:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Website this is from offers no information re: dating, source or copyright. We hope (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going into the site's Terms of Service says everything, including the photos, is copyrighted to Tribune Corporation, and its affiliates. "Copyright. All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with Zap2it.com, with the exception of User Content as defined below, including for example news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos, and the like (collectively, the "Content"), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Tribune Media Services, Inc. ("TMS"), and/or its affiliated companies, licensors and suppliers."

We hope (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Site this is from says all photos are under copyright. We hope (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from AllPosters, whose Terms of Use say re: copyright: "All Website Content is our property or the property of our content suppliers and is protected by international copyright laws." We hope (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"So Dear to My Heart"-Walt Disney Productions. The seller's scan cuts off the entire copyright notice but other photos from the film have notices for Walt Disney Productions on them. We hope (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm afraid this photograph of two posters is derived (partly) from a non-free work (i.e. the poster) and is therefore unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons. Mathonius (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Mathonius (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is not placed permanently in a public place, so it is not acceptable under Belgian FOP. BrightRaven (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks permanently affixed in public to me. looks like photographic artwork with text elements to me.
see also w:Freedom_of_panorama#Two-dimensional_works: " "permanent" typically meaning "for the natural lifetime of the work". In Switzerland, even taking and publishing images of two-dimensional works such as murals or graffiti is permitted, but such images cannot be used for the same purpose as the originals" " Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per the translation quoted at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium, it's apparently required that "the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself". That does not seem to be the case here, where the image is pretty clearly intended as nothing but a replication of the copyrighted works. There is no 'context' that would allow this to be de minimis, so I don't think it's acceptable. Reventtalk 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

likes a scanned photo, non an own work Ezarateesteban 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unclear copyright status: almost full reproduction of 2D text. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no source at all, so we don't know who actually created this. Just guessing isn't any helpful. Liliana-60 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per a recent research by User:Orchi[4], the immediate source website (SOF) does not have enough rights for relicensing this (and other) images; the original authors retain their copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the general disclaimer of the website is rather misleading ... any way, I agree with deletion :-( --Esculapio (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation: the picture was taken from http://operann.ru/article/dirig Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This sculpture seems modern and was probably created after 1945, therefore ineligible for Commons (per COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 08:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope - promotional INeverCry 17:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unidentified logo: out of scope? No licence, but presumably {{PD-ineligible}}, although this depends on the country of origin. Stefan4 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Ein Fehler im Titel. Habe schon eine neue Version hochgeladen. Gliwi (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Smaller copies elsewhere.[5][6][7] Stefan4 (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user claims own work on my talk page. I've asked him to contact OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Urheberrechtsverletzung - das Foto ist geschützt Ralf Roleček 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

PNG with better resolution exists! Witten (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Pomyłka - to nie jest Grzegorz VIII Edward Knapczyk (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

superseded by Flag_of_Bredene.svg and no longer in use on any wiki 141.134.211.73 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Pierpao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: derived from copyrighted artwork Sreejith K (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Sakoppi as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Non-Free Logo (Created in 1966)|source=喜入町郷土誌(Kagoshima City) p.13 Sreejith K (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Chris Archibald (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Complex logos. Either copyvios or out of scope, I suppose.

Stefan4 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
[edit]

Commons:Superseded images policy: JPEG logos with compression artifacts and/or backgrounds, unlikely to have educational use per COM:SCOPE because apparently-clean SVG versions of the same logos are now on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Technical request/cleaning up. Masur (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

These works were created by authors (Plečnik, Mušič, Grabrijan etc.) who died after 1945, therefore they're still copyrighted and per COM:FOP#Slovenia ineligible for Commons.

Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

As per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957), not in the public domain until 2028.

TadejM (t/p) 00:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as to the file I uploaded, File:Ljubljana zale world war memorial 1 DSC 3911.jpg
As I read COMːFOP#Slovenia, it should be allowed to remain, as it is "non-commercial . . . placed in . . . public place[s]". The relevant text isː "Only non-commercial use allowed. Under the Consolidated Copyright Act as of 2016, Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares or other public places, may be used freely.[12/2016 Art.55(1)]" Please remove the deletion request. Seauton (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Only non-commercial use allowed" is clear enough. This project only accepts images that may be used for any purpose, including commercial. --TadejM (t/p) 09:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Work of Josip Dostal (1872-1954). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, ineligible for Commons until 2025 (please, undelete then).

Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The sculptor, France Kralj, died in 1960, less than 70 years ago.

Eleassar (t/p) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Eleassar (t/p) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted: File:France Kralj. Ljubljana v zimi.JPG (not a work in a public place). --Eleassar (t/p) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The person depicted lived from 1882 -1948, making it possible for the work to be PD. The description isn't clear on this though

Vera (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Franciseuceda (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal photos. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons:Project scope.

LX (talk, contribs) 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It looks like these are contemporary drawings, making them copyright protected

Vera (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Xtremas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Presentations of organization with questionable notability. Also no source of illustrations.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tazflerts (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Text only-file which could be replaced with wiki-markup. Questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by PUJMoyaAleja (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aryanwelle (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by MillcreekrancH (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality images advertisement. Also no evidence of permission.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MillcreekrancH (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality images advertisement. Also no evidence of permission.

Wiki13 15:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MillcreekrancH (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low resolution, missing exif, some of them marked as copyvio - doubtful authorship. Many of them (maybe all?) can be found in the internet. Advertisement in description - out of project scope.

Art-top (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Morning (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

TBC Bank advertisement

[edit]

Reasons:

  1. Uploader User:Tandguladze makes some advertisement articles of TBC Bank at some Wikipedias, using a lot of unnecessary noninformative PR-images. Some of them are marked as db-copyvioo with supposed source of it.
  2. Doubtful authorship. See for example File:TBC Bank12.JPG - in metadata is pointed author - Photographer: Tinatin Revazi, but where is permission from him? More: his (Tinatin Revazi) camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II is also pointed in metadata of others photos. And also all photos have no original dimensions (they are smaller than originals).
  3. Some files violate Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Georgia.

Altogether seems like good candidates for deletion. --Dmitry89 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Érico Wouters msg 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There are some advertisement articles of TBC Bank at some Wikipedias, using a lot of unnecessary noninformative PR-images. Some of them are marked as db-copyvioo with supposed source of it.

When working on TBC Bank Wikipedia text, we reviewed several well known bank Wikipedia pages such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and others. They also have headquarter building and other branch photos on their pages, please let us know what exactly is the problem with our photos and what you suggest to change.

  1. Doubtful authorship. See for example File:TBC Bank12.JPG - in metadata is pointed author - Photographer: Tinatin Revazi, but where is permission from him? More: his (Tinatin Revazi) camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II is also pointed in metadata of others photos. And also all photos have no original dimensions (they are smaller than originals).

Sometimes we hire photographs, sometimes our marketing department takes photos of the branches, in any case we are the owners of the photos. Please let us know what information you need to allow these photos to be used on Wikipedia.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by JV05 Nikken Derek (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

could this really be treated as trivial? I don't think so, what do others think? rubin16 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, see the examples at Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany. So  Keep. It would have been a good idea to look there before making this unnecessary DR. --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Denniss (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't agree with PD-textlogo. I think not simple Fonts and geometrical drawing. Bertrouf (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. About the only thing in this that could be construed to be more than the simplest geometrical shapes is the lozenge pattern. And that has been around for centuries (it's part of the Bavarian coat of arms), so any period of copyright protection it might have had is long over. --Rosenzweig τ 11:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. It is very simple geometry, a circle is the simplest figure in geometry. The de:Wecke (Heraldik) are ineligible as heraldic element. In Germany the threshold of originality seems higher than in other states.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bayern München is one of the biggest and richest sport clubs in the world. Do you really think they would not protest in many years against this copyright violations?!? The really question to this argumentation is, what is in you eyes is an simple font?? (this is one of the simplest fonts I know, the letters got also not stretched in the circle way) Anyway this is an revenant DR, so speedy keep.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Kept: Bavarian flag + simple text. Everything else covered by Trademark warning template. --Denniss (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation; according to FC Bayern's website's Terms and Conditions(https://fcbayern.com/us/terms-and-conditions) "All of the logos, photographs and other images on FC Bayern’s internet presence are protected by trademark/copyright. Any use thereof without consent of FC Bayern, in particular the unauthorised downloading of images, is prohibited and FC Bayern will pursue violators under civil law/criminal law." gunsROSES 13:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Speedykeept: not again, see the above closures. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moscow State University 02-2006.jpg (former title "File:Moscow State University.jpg")

[edit]

No FoP in Russia. 84.61.151.63 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Moscow State University.jpg

No COM:FOP#Russia. Sad to see such a great picture go. King of 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agreed. Not the same image as the previous action, but the same rules apply. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Sakoppi as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Non-Free Logo (Created in 1971)|source=吉田町郷土誌(Kagoshima City) p.7 Sreejith K (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as {{PD-shape}} per a court decision in Japan to deny the copyright eligibility of the Olympic rings. See the decision "オリンピック標章事件"(東京地裁昭和39年9月25日判決) and a commentary. I think thelevel of creativity in this image, which is a major factor for eligibility, is not that different. --whym (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 19:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose Poor quality image, eg aircraft not identifiable by manufacturer/type, and event is adequately covered by existing better images. PeterWD (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Even if I'm not an airplane expert, the side view of the plane should make it identifiable to an expert in the field. I wouldn't also say that the image is of poor quality. Badzil (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 19:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Je ne souhaites pas qu'il soit utilisé par d'autre. Logo de ma marque Benoitlux (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nakanosan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio - derivative works of non-PD artistic works in Japan. Per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, we cannot host pictures of copyrightable artistic works from Japan. These sculptures/paintings/drawings are attached to/located in a temple which was built in 2008. (w:ja:佛教之王堂) They look as new as the temple, and thus I don't believe they are in the public domain.

whym (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added 1. --whym (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nakanosan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio regarding depicted sculptures and paintings. Although no information is given to show who created them and where they were located, considering

I believe these were also photos taken in the temple. EXIF information also supports this reasoning. If that is true, these would be derivative works of non-free 3D artworks. And per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, even if they were taken in a public place, we cannot host them.

whym (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted INeverCry 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

According to enwiki "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, New Zealand. " Bulwersator (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - "FOUR", ok so did I violate a copyright here? --Sreejith K (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, too simple. Fry1989 eh? 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Four TV logo NZ.png

COM:SCOPE: low-quality version not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Appears to be an unused, squished, raster version, with a forced background, of a logo that is available at its proper aspect ratio at File:Four New Zealand logo.svg. Closeapple (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope, no educational use. Amada44  talk to me 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep IMHO within scope. Its fitting fine to subcats of Category:Photomontages, where its allready categorized to. --JuTa 12:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I really don't see any educational value. Amada44  talk to me 16:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per JuTa. INeverCry 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Based on a similar map in: Čepič, Zdenko et al. (1979). Zgodovina Slovencev. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba. Page 133, which means it is a derived work of a copyrighted work. Eleassar (t/p) 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has removed this reference from the cited sources.[8] Another problem is that this map is based on File:Waterways of SE Central Europe.svg, which is currently marked as a "derived work without a source". --Eleassar (t/p) 12:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Of course- there is nothing I could do about it ;)--Bostjan46 (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Here we have a situation where a map has been created on two written sources and one map source of Čepič et al. The problem represents info about eastern borders (on Raba and Danube river)- this information (for Raba river) has been gotten from the map in Čepič et al. The information on borders on Raba and Danube rivers could be also got from written source in Komatar, F. (1916): Zgodovina in geografija Avstro-Ogrske, page 862. Description info has been changed and the map as a source is not mentioned any more.

Please note that derivative works could have a large gray zone. This map is an example. Considering the borders of Reg.Car. it is not necessary to look at any maps, because there we can find written sources for the map creation. It could also be noted, that the map of Čepič et al. is a little bit different for the western border.

Many questions could be raised on the sources of the maps. For ex. – what exactly is copy right violation and what exactly is derivation or what exactly is stealing the information from some map? In the case of disputed map of Reg. Car., it could be seen, that colors and territorial composition are not taken from the map in Čepič et al. This is not a retouched map from Čepič et al., but a new map. So it is very questionable if the terms “from” or “based on” or “derived from” always represents a clear proof that any copy rights were violated. If we take the map of Reg. Car. as an example, the map of Čepič et al. is not a crucial info source, it can be replaced with the written info - as actually has been done. I think that this map should not be deleted.

But this is a good time to discuss some other maps, I have created, because some of them could really be problematic. I believe Eleassar will check up these maps. Most of maps on Croat history are unquestionable, because written sources are quite enough for evaluation of copy rights.. . But there are others.

For example- please note the file Regnum Sclavorum 754 AD.PNG. This file used some copy righted maps as their source. Three maps mentioned in the description of the file represent historical borders of Croat and Serbian territory. But final map of Regnum Sclavorum is only a fictional map (Regnum Sclavorum was a historical fiction) – it is unique and could not be found in any other maps. So does it also mean a derivation of three maps, considered as forbidden use of copy righted material ? The other files, which are in gray zone, are: Paleo-Veneti map.PNG ; Marca Vinedorum-sl.PNG ; Kingdom of Samo-sl version.PNG and perhaps most disputable Celjski grofje ozemlje.PNG . Each of these maps is unique, it is not a replication of any of these maps. But anyway, each of this maps are partly based on maps. Regards, --Bostjan46 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we leave superimposed information aside for a moment, it's currently unknown what was the original topographic map (File:Waterways of SE Central Europe.svg) based upon. Per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Maps & satellite imagery, "any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license." It also gives an example of a file with explicitly listed free sources. Per COM:EVIDENCE, "The uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence"..."along with the original source where the file is a derivative work."
As regards the superimposed information, please note the phrase "wholly based... on public domain sources."
I am sorry about having your maps lacking source information. I have no problem keeping them here if they're redrawn using free sources (or textual descriptions) only, and I'm sure there are some topographic maps on Commons that are based on free and adequately cited sources and can be used for your purpose. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination per what has been said about derived maps for example here. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. INeverCry 20:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't think this graffiti can be considered de minimis. Ralgistalk 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Covered by freedom of panorama in Spain.--Pere prlpz (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No, it isn't covered. The Spanish law states, with regard to FoP, that it may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer. If you take the logo of my electricity supplier, which BTW it's permanently located on the electrical substation at my building basement, you can not take it and claim FoP to assign it the license you wish. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what is the limit for "unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests"? Of course, any author is legitimately interested on keep all rights on all their works, wherever they are placed, but this would be just overriding freedom of panorama in Spain.
IMO, this "legitimate interests" provision might apply, for example, to some permanent exhibitions in public places without permission of author, but by no means I can see it affecting a work of art that an author has placed in the street by himself - I assume that the grafitti is in the street and that it has never been moved, and therefore its author hand painted it in the street.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Wider discussion of the issue may be merited, but without further information, I'm going to close this one as "deleted" based on the COM:PRP. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work Denniss (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: de minimis Morning (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

incorrect license as it is logo. And I am not sure that it could be licensed under PD-trivial. rubin16 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die Lizenz für das Logo kann ich noch hinzufügen, aber warum sollte es unter der gewählten Lizenz nicht gehen? Der Ersteller des Logos hat es ja so gewählt.--Heubergen (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos and since the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom is very low. odder (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Work of the architects en:Jože Plečnik (1872-1957) and Ivo Spinčič (1903-1985); per COM:FOP#Slovenia, ineligible for Commons until 2056 (please, undelete then).

Eleassar (t/p) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination for the file Navje-Ljubljana.JPG. I've received a message by the uploader of the other image that these arcades were not designed by Plečnik and Spinčič.[9] After extensive further research online, I've not been able to determine the original architect, but have found the information that they date to ca. 1865,[10] which I believe makes it almost impossible for the architect to be still alive in 1945 (80 years later). I'm not withdrawing my proposal for the other file, because the park was arranged by the listed architects. They also designed other buildings, and I also have no information that the large upright (tomb?)stones would be preexistent. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the plaques under the arcades were designed in the 19th century at the cemetery and moved to their place under the arcades by Plečnik. I don't think this makes any new copyright for him, but if it does, I consider it 'de minimis'. There are also other buildings visible, which I consider de minimis in this image. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has argued on my page against the deletion of the first (winter) image, based on the argument that the depicted arrangement of trees and tombstones does not surpass the threshold of individuality, because nothing makes it stand above other everyday solutions and that the focus of the image is on the copyright-free arcades.[11] My opinion is that the park (work of sl:Anton Lap according to Plečnik's plan, therefore undelete in 2028, which is 70+1 years after Plečnik's death)[12] was carefully arranged and that it is in the focus, whereas the arcades are hidden a bit in the background behind the trees and the two tombstones. It doesn't matter whether the park is depicted in part or in whole, because parts of copyrighted works are protected too. I've invited the uploader to present his view in more detail here. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: 1 deleted, 1 kept per above. INeverCry 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Work by I. Spinčič (d. 1985). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons until 2056.

Eleassar (t/p) 09:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. INeverCry 00:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have an SVG of this flag. Fry1989 eh? 19:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SVG have another ratio and colors. Skrod (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I am certainly not aware of a policy that raster images should be deleted where vector versions are available. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

But you should be aware that there is a pratice to delete rasters if an SVG exists BEFORE it. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.


Unfortunately, British FOP only covers artistic works, not literary works. The text is still copyrighted, unless you can show that it is {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Some photos, like File:WTC Dumbledore's Army BlackPlaque1.JPG, look like typical de minimis cases, except that the descriptions and file names explicitly mention the plaque, indicating that the plaque is the main purpose of the photo, and then it can't be de minimis. Also, the threshold of originality is very low in the United Kingdom, so I guess that also very short texts are copyrighted.

Stefan4 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK FOP also applies to buildings. I wonder if it could be argued that the plaques are part of the building. Probably not, but just wanted to mention it. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument. I cannot however think that this conclusion is incorrect as I don't believe that the plaque publishers intended to create a copyright and it we could contact the publishers then they would say that they would have added a copyright tag if that was their intention. How can we contact the plaque publishers? Victuallers (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This website http://openplaques.org/ has information on plaques usually it includes who erected the plaques, but not always and I can't find that information for these plaques Oxyman (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep some on de minimis grounds. For example, File:WTC Dumbledore's Army BlackPlaque1.JPG (mentioned in the nomination) really should be kept. Yes the plaque is a major subject of the photo, and therefore is not de minimis. However, what is the photo of? The text on the plaque (copyrighted) or the plaque itself (OK as a work of artistic craftsmanship)? That photo shows the building has a plaque on it, and the plaque's general appearance. The text isn't visible until you view at 100% and isn't mentioned in the description (or title). The plaque (a black disc with something on it) is covered by FOP. Compare this to File:WTC Wormova Hay Lane Plaque.JPG where the copyrighted elements are significant.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the sentence fragments on the plaques are so small that there is very little likelihood of any copyright being able to be asserted. If there was any evidence that the owners of the plaques thought differently, then we would hear from them. Perhaps an enquiry to Coventry CC might clear up any doubt? --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK you don't need much to claim copyright. Check Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you don't need much. But I maintain you need more than those plaques display. The logos you refer to are of course commercial properties with a distinctive artistic rendering, not sentence fragments in a plain font. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which way is it more creative to draw two triangles than to write several sentences of text? Threshold of originality doesn't depend on whether something is a commercial property or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that question doesn't depend on whether commercial property. However, by necessity, the threshold of originality for artistic works will be different to the threshold of originality for literary works. As they are two separate forms of work, the definitions for the two thresholds need to use the terms appropriate to each work. Its easier to draw an original triangle than write an original short sentence (there's more scope in an artistic work to make original choices). Case law on artistic originality doesn't establish the threshold for literary originality. Its quite conceivable that these plaques are below that threshold.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As RexxS says, they're very short sentence fragments posted in public places specifically for informational purposes, so it's unlikely that copyright would be asserted, if it applies at all, or if anyone could even figure out who owned any such copyright.
Almost all of these photographs resulted from a recent, well-attended event (Wikipedia Takes Coventry) organised by Wikimedia UK, at least partly to encourage wider participation in Wikipedia and related projects. It would be unfortunate if they ended up being deleted because of an overly strict interpretation of UK copyright law. I think at the very least we should explore alternatives before summarily casting them into the outer darkness, but it's not clear to me who would actually own the copyright on these sentence fragments. My best guess is that they would have been written by someone working for Coventry City Council a few decades ago, so any hypothetical copyright would probably rest with the Council. But I've no idea who we'd ask for permission, and probably neither does the Council itself. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These texts are presumably works for hire. In the United Kingdom, I believe that the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the employer. Per COM:PRP, we can't keep an image only because we don't know who the copyright holder is. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that simply not knowing who theoretically owns the copyright isn't grounds for keeping them. I am, however, unconvinced (from my limited and non-professional understanding of UK copyright law) that sentence fragments as short as these are even copyrightable. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. These are very short snippets of text that have been stuck to walls, so I think it's extremely unlikely that anybody intended copyright restrictions to apply to them—after all, the purpose of copyright is to control how others can use your work, and if you want to control something, sticking it to a wall in a public place wouldn't be a very sensible way to go about it.

    Assuming, however, for argument's sake, that they are found to be in violation of copyright, not all of them need to be deleted. In some cases the plaques themselves rather than the text on them are the subject of the work, and I would suggest that the plaques (which have depth and ridges) are 3D and thus covered by FoP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copyright restrictions apply regardless of whether someone intended copyright restrictions to apply or not. Also, very short segments of texts are known to be copyrighted. See for example COM:TOO#Chile (which is the only example of text on that page). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But last I checked, Coventry wasn't in Chile. ;) Besides which, that's a unique phrase with historical context; these are just basic descriptions. and yes, you're quite correct that copyright applies in such cases, but if no restrictions were intended, deleting them on the basis of abstract arguments serves nobody—not even the copyright holder. Finally, I'm sure you mean well, but it's not necessary to badger everybody who comments—if your argument is strong, you don't need to repeat it every time somebody expresses a differing opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. (Disclosure: two of the images are my work.) Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no consensus to delete Morning (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no permission Odessey (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well, this is a derivative file of this file. Hence, it is a photo of a photo, and the file it is derived for has a permission. So maybe it's not valid after all ; I'll let other users be the judges. Since there are other pictures of this character, it might not be a major problem after all. JJ Georges (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]