Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
_H'sluis.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![150 File:Логотип ПБО "Надія і житло для дітей" в Україні.jpg](#File:Логотип_ПБО_"Надія_і_житло_для_дітей"_в_Україні.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
{{speedydelete|no longer needed}} Mhar ren (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion Sreejith K (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|no longer needed}} Mhar ren (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion Sreejith K (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|no longer needed}} Mhar ren (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. Sreejith K (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Typo error "Users:" prefix instead of "User:" namespace Bub's (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy -- simple cleanup . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Cant find license info on source page Typ932 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Source is unfree. Martin H. (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe this photo to by a violation of copyright.
I followed the provided source link and went to the main page of the site. I navigated to the article where the image was posted. At the bottom of the page, there is a credit to another site: "[ Credit ] Jessture(http://www.jessture.net/)".
I went to this site and attempted to locate the image, but most pages are unaccessible (it appears to be a login system, although I do not know since I do not speak Korean well enough). Generally, I would assume this means they don't license their content freely.
Both pages feature a copyright statement at the bottom of the page and make no mention of an open licensing scheme, at least that I could find.
Additionally, the author of the image is declared as "The Chosunilbo JNS", however, the "[Photographer]" credit on the source site states, "니나노 님, 림킷 님" which romanizes to something similar to "Ninano Nim, Limkit Nim", neither of which are aforementioned name.
Finally, the photo uploader already has several other confirmed copyright violations. Michaelcomella (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe this image to be in violation of copyright law.
I did a Google reverse image search on the photo to find this page, which is a forum thread with a series of Hyoyeon images. The post featuring the image states, "Cre : twitter".
I was unable to find the original image on Twitter.
The file uploader has had copyright violations in the past and I suspect that this may not be their "own work", as they state.
Can the file uploader provide proof that the image belongs to them? While the Twitter credit is not necessarily to be believed, linking the Twitter in question or posting additional images of the event may suffice (though if you feel uncomfortable doing so for privacy concerns, say so). Thanks. Michaelcomella (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the newspapers. Yann (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image because this photo and this photo are both hosted in Commons and are of similar nature, so I didn't see it was wrong to illustrate the articles about the newspaper with a photo. And by the way, the image next to the word "Wayuunaiki" is not a logo, is a traditional wayuu symbol used in embroidery. No? --Maor X (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Newspapers.jpg is (probably) OK because we only see the titles, and a few words, never a whole article or drawing. File:NewspaPER.jpg is quite borderline, but we can't read the text, so it is also probably OK. Blurring the drawing of the front newspaper would help for your image. The rest might be de minimis. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, can I replace it with another version where the front pages are less visible, like rearranged in such a way the front pages are not so clearly visible? Would that be OK? --Maor X (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can do so, it might be OK. Yann (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll proceed. Thanks! --Maor X (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I ulpoaded a new version and ajusted it accordingly. Can you please check? Thanks --Maor X (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll proceed. Thanks! --Maor X (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can do so, it might be OK. Yann (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, can I replace it with another version where the front pages are less visible, like rearranged in such a way the front pages are not so clearly visible? Would that be OK? --Maor X (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Newspapers.jpg is (probably) OK because we only see the titles, and a few words, never a whole article or drawing. File:NewspaPER.jpg is quite borderline, but we can't read the text, so it is also probably OK. Blurring the drawing of the front newspaper would help for your image. The rest might be de minimis. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image because this photo and this photo are both hosted in Commons and are of similar nature, so I didn't see it was wrong to illustrate the articles about the newspaper with a photo. And by the way, the image next to the word "Wayuunaiki" is not a logo, is a traditional wayuu symbol used in embroidery. No? --Maor X (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In the new version, anything copyrighted is de minimis. Yann (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this architecture is free per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. I've tried to find the location of this palace by searching for "Camper" online (as written on the façade). This is actually Old Square No. 4 House in Ljubljana, the birthplace of Janez Vajkard Valvasor. It was build in 1637-38, with the façade completed at the end of the 18th century.[1] (compare with File:Valvasor-rojstnahisa-Ljubljana.JPG). This makes it too old to be copyrighted in both Slovenia (the source country) and in the United States. It is therefore eligible for Commons. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept, nomination withdrawn by nominator; appears to be ok per laws of source country. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from: http://news.softpedia.es/newsImage/UK-s-First-4G-Network-Launches-Today-Hits-16-Cities-by-Christmas-2.jpg/ And more here: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiv0nzDyFAC_1nSMDkz4vbDtgJeKTOO6TdpInaVFTge95YWi1c94I8YyjuFv3K_1mRMxvr5LWMr3ySeSCPal3mFXM9N67q3sAPgCGGKO8tImzT7eyaml1UEvwXgpvF5z00Zw5zNA4Ycr-qpHiQ3hWQmos3F50ZtaAbYE2dUr6hLi8zkuO2MFOQp0JTh9O8R0NkSqu0megd-3w87_13RrmVhALfYuTSDk9OdODs_16Sj4PezsAUUxKBo8XBePikpPSiH8Iad8AQKZyCFsj8JoYa_1BFf67Zw2VfXu6lJ716NoUK479fWkP1HpP3MQ2T3thqC-iynqsOpF01hC4KhzhXXg53mVb_1tg48T6ycM_1WmvGBofAGYZN-WeSHRlb60KMzaqoNsIyJB1zowRbmdy63wBBkSB8_1TMRNNcnQMUduOMJYySNahoBEdW4Ny8EWZQIYUb6V1utBOfI9l28Imf29OSHF4a250HreLZQaGEFlJPXRyYXLj3OnybTPKkHeba5bXs8ghFK2TJq_1PW62U0gAIwOM_1HSfK1WsEDrSDCcQqMkBpn2K72MPZih9ptVH59OHOkXoUfaIe-jMUe1BUb1-FQ1x_1GxeciXiXq7d9m3Wb2sISFsgGmhN8hY6GAmeJ1d8TY5CcGFLLtVm1LPgE5OXpap1yKQgzB2t7c-QqCBDO1CVOAcq67klmCpzi-h1kH5cRDtMmIfqJqTMlfHHWrmbmNbUhKNftas_1SPsOktnA4Kof27hIJPEdV3-bax_14fSoU1R88wyAkZrY5iMtKX94h7KfvFlIPbG_1dTK8WNSwE8Yc7RgGeLhTng2e9j_1ExN0d5VaYX3yazTGMR9WNHqMvHtebS7i5QW2lyYd7gcmebUIR6_1gfHokrv5TMqWfGCEEFvt_1I47lEhqb1tSMsBNdFI5SJURPxiATZjPoMHJ88WL1_1FELiioSWgcJ7aJuWZtq_1uedQ8_1iIOvlr045tgYd-wnGCy32GbwhIlM6Jd93fldhhLQ99GaV0KSjM
But I'm hesitating because for me it is a simple image. What do you think? LK-4D4 ¿0100 101? 16:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. False statement of authorship and false license. Image was an orphan, so arguments over simplicity are in this case moot. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
unused self-degrading image with the description : "I am from Belmont, MS. I am a PUSSY BITCH!" Hindustanilanguage (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted. Orphan tiny photo, vanity insult caption. Out of scope personal attack image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The licensing rationale is flawed ("This file is in the public domain, because [it was] created anonymously on the internet"). The image appears to be a manipulation of a (presumably copyright) stock image. Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 22:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Blurry, black and white collage. Not very good quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Blurry poor quality image of common object which Wikimedia already has hundreds of much superior images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with analysis by nom. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly copyrighted. Yann (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete OK, now it is blatantly the costume itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious derivative work. 'De minimis' is clearly misused here Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Very low resolution and partially corrupt image of human penis (which we have a wealth of well photographed high resolution images of); only use on uploader's user page - no activity from user on Wikimedia other than on one day back in May, apparent vanity/prank/troll upload. Infrogmation (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - agreed, useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Normally I wouldn't support the deletion of even a bad image that was in use, but I think the use here is actually vandalism. --Simonxag (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best resolution shown here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Good faith upload but it looks like we've got some technical problems with this photo that would make i virtually unusable. Sarah (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
seems broken file Effeietsanders (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- And because one open deletion request is not enough, we start a second one? -- Rillke(q?) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
_H%27sluis.jpg){kind=link}
_H%27sluis.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
_H'sluis.jpg){kind=link}
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
_H'sluis.jpg){kind=link}
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunningTide (talk • contribs)
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See previous deletion request. The problem I have is that it is not clear that RunnigTide is the author of this photo (and all the other ones uploaded by RunnigTide) because on all photos is a watermark that mentions "foto: Kees Jurgens". RunnigTide has uploaded 10 photos all at about the same time and all about Hellevoetsluis. No other photos have been uploaded by RunnigTide since September 2011. This indicates that he might have copied photos from Kees Jurgens and uploaded it as his own work to Commons. An other indication of that is that there are no meta data. In general these are kept with the photo when the user uploads its own photos and no special post processing has been carried out such as with panoramas or photos taken with a fisheye lens. Wouter (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunningTide (talk • contribs)
- Keep per explanation by user. Given that Tineye can't find any other copies of the photos on the Internet, there's not much we can do other than assume good faith. Ask for OTRS? Kees Jurgens has no publicly available email, so a permission email sent to us from some random Gmail account is about as good as a claim here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kept own work, confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047 . Multichill (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan vanity image, including likely derivative work copyright violation, dubious photoshop/prank. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: www.photofacefun.com -- Common Good (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Variations of this montage can be found at numerous places in the web (examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]) – seems to be some kind of meme. I couldn't figure out where the original background comes from, but the uploader most probably did not take the picture himself → Copyright violation. --El Grafo (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XTmpRKhr-hw/S5GfmfPQ4nI/AAAAAAABLBY/RAM3ffCQA64/s400/FunPhotoBox_251402ilgnqo.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tf2JfGsJ7kA/TRdMU0kUHxI/AAAAAAAABXw/uv7IqI_fzV4/s400/pasparopaxos.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://renfah.xarch.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/FunPhotoBox080744s1qqxfub.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: www.photofacefun.com/?section_id=3 -- Common Good (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is also based on some kind of internet meme (examples: [6], [7], [8]). It is probably impossible to find out who the photographer of the background image was, but I'm pretty sure that the uploader did not shoot it himself. There's no deed to discuss about the nazi symbols here: It's a copyright violation, so the content that was added to the image is completely irrelevant (I would argue the same way if there was a peace sign instead of the swastika). --El Grafo (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
![[7]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7saXLKtpA4U/Tuh1LGMMe0I/AAAAAAAACEY/VQwtsajynws/s1600/photofacefun_com_LPAoUnv4G_1323803358.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: www.photofacefun.com/?section_id=3 -- Common Good (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: wall.alphacoders.com/big.php?i=24316 -- Common Good (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time.I do though question using the imagery of the Joker here, its very close to the film version Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: cv -- Common Good (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Too blurry. unusable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphan very blurry image; no evidence particular unique importance to compensate for very low quality. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 09:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. No educational content, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 09:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; apparent vanity/private joke image, out of scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 09:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Private image. Unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 10:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Design can't be de minimis here. Yann (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The artistic features are clearly separable from its function as a pinball machine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only image. Could be replaced with wiki-markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"This image came from my documents." That does not say anything about copyright or why the uploader has the right to freely license it. Without further explanation, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Some homepage picture, unknown persons, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. Although pre 1989, it has a (c) at the bottom . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: : Morning ☼ (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. (2003 plaque) . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this image infringes the copyright on both the text and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused bad quality private photo - out of project scope. Published on many sites, for example here in 2006, here in 2008 - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Guess copyright violation. Pic was published by the shown person on 27th November 2017 on OK.ru: https://ok.ru/profile/540055177339 ....HMS (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
FOIA releases are not public domain if not created by Federal Government employees. Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FOIA releases are not public domain if not created by Federal Government employees. Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FOIA releases are not public domain if not created by Federal Government employees. Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FOIA releases are not public domain if not created by Federal Government employees. Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not censored, but this and other images are being used to support an article which relies solely on them for its existence. most ot the images are photoshop works using this reverse nazi swastika, presumably for shock value. I think a discussion is in order. i am not advocating deletion at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as orphan uncategorized image with no apparent in scope usefulness. (I don't know what "article" you are talking about; no usage found, no contributions by uploader on en:W nor es:W found.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Author does not match user for own work claim. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This looks like a photograph of a television screen, so it's probably non-free and therefore unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons. Mathonius (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The image is of extremely low resolution, and of poor quality, leading one to assume that this is a grab from another website. Because it was uploaded back in the day when people didn't care much for copyright on these projects, and with the general lack of contributions from the uploader on dewiki, one can fairly assume this is a copyvio. We have plenty of other freely licenced photos which can be used to replace this. russavia (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since File:Uno_City_Kaiserwasser.jpg seems to be a perfect replacement, there will be no objection from my side.
--Addicted (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Too blurry. overexposed. unusable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Too blurry. overexposed. unusable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Too blurry. overexposed. unusable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
bad quality Alexandronikos (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Same picture has been used in here, in 15 May 2010. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Strange... The photo has Exif data, it is from a non professional camera and looks it has been shot in the same day as others, like File:KEL 20~11.jpg. --Stegop (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- They has been shot in the same day probably. But if you can take a look in here (official website of the high school), you'll see a lot of pictures that has been shot in the same day :)--Rapsar (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
defect in quality Alexandronikos (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The source is www.Harpalgeo.tv, which is the webpage for GeoTV, the website that hosts the Nadia Khan Show. Everything on that site is labelled as copyrighted; this is certainly either a screen shot or a promotional still. There's no way that it's in the public domain; further, the same author has uploaded a different but also copyrighted picture on en.wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Info Found in higher resolution at http://www.cheap-hostels-in.com/tours-in/istanbul-city-break-istanbul.htm. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of a subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons:Project scope. No verifiable source. Supposedly the license agreement "will be forwarded to OTRS shortly", but that was nearly two months ago, and it still hasn't been verified. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work by the uploader who has uploaded multiple copyright violations of this individual. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
the images of Guðjohnsen, Sigmarsson, Finnbogadóttir, Ívarsdóttir and others are not sourced and lack evidence of permission Hekerui (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Similar reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:The New Afghani Currency.jpg... w:International Organization for Migration (IOM) is not USAID. Officer (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be original and probably copyright violatión from Loja town hall 2.137.189.41 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Similar reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:AF-aid2.jpg.... the photographer "Paul Cruickshank" is a New York based investigative reporter specializing in Al Qaeda, a CNN Terrorism Analyst, and an Alumni Fellow at the Center on Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law. [9] There's no evidence that he worked for USAID at the time when the image was created so it doesn't qualify as PD-USAID. The image is not used in any articles plus this mosque has been completely renovated. Officer (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Reproduction of a copyrighted plan. France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Similar reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghanistan mosque.jpg.... the photographer "Paul Cruickshank" is a New York based investigative reporter specializing in Al Qaeda, a CNN Terrorism Analyst, and an Alumni Fellow at the Center on Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law. [2] There's no evidence that he worked for USAID at the time when the image was created so it doesn't qualify as PD-USAID. Officer (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As there's no freedom of panorama in France, this picture showing an art work created by André Alexandre Verdilhan (1881-1963) can't be considered a free. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Cropped from an unknown image (Google cache). Per COM:PRP: Uploader is - considering his talk page - a frequent copyvioer... Gunnex (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo. P199 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is a hoax and is not a picture of Erick Rothschild, whoever that actually is. Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, whatever the name of person shown in this modified image might be. It was briefly used to illustrate an article on en:W en:Erick J Rothschild that was deleted as having no evidence of notability provided. (Also not uploader provides the image description only as "A picture" with no further explanation.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Electro07 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
So out-of-focus that it is unlikely to have any educational purpose, and is thus out of scope. Commons has many in-focus images of BMO Field. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
File is not used in the user page, used only on this page - test "template" in user space, similar to the template "stub" - is not used, there are no links to it. Out of project scope. Dubious source "Jewish community" - probably copyvio. Art-top (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This image appears all over the web -- I strongly suspect Flickrwashing. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [10]. Yann (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=297488595#File:The_Ultimate_Warrior.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. It might be a resized/cropped copyvio from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=32804094&postcount=1659 (02.2009) which itself refers to http://meiodecamporm.blogspot.de/2009/02/complexo-mineirao-mineirinho.html (02.2009) = high res-jpg . Compare the car locations on the road (especially the trucks/vans): They are identical. Gunnex (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
see COM:TOO#United Kingdom; this image shows more creativity than other UK-based logos which were deemed by courts to be copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
likely copyrighted text Effeietsanders (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The image source says "Photographer's Name: MICHAEL LEMKE, CIVILIAN", so this is not PD-USGOV . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The source I used for the file is http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#guid=9b0f2a7318d0e2993742d1c0850a6090da822282. The text attached to the PD notice on Wikipedia reads: This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
- So if he is a civilian, he would still be a US Gov employee? Or is there a better tag for this? Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Terms of Use say "In general, imagery on this site is not copyrighted (cleared for release Department of Defense imagery is usually in the public domain), but if in doubt, you agree to examine the Rights data field for appropriate information." As there is no "Rights" field, we can assume it is PD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. The the next sentence in the paragraph cited by KoH says, "We will make every effort to ensure that copyrighted works are so noted in the Rights field, but cannot be held responsible if the copyright is not conveyed to us for entry." We know that the photographer was a civilian, nothing more. He may have been a DoD employee, or, equally likely, a photographer working for the supplier of the equipment being demonstrated. COM:PRP therefore requires that we delete. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The subject is a South African. If it was first published in SA, then it is OK (50 years after pub), but if it was first published in Britain -- likely as the VC is a British award, then it is 70 years PMA and may well not be out of copyright for some time. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, didn't consider that. I suspect its PD:SA - if it was UK he would have been shown with the medal newly pinned on. Can we simply change the tag to PD South Africa? Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, sorry. The rule at COM:PRP is that if there can be significant doubt about the status of an image, we must delete it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this file is freely licensed. Only upload of the uploader and looks like professional work ([11]) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
![[11]](http://www.hellomagazin.rs/arhiva/slike/56-5.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe that this image is PD anywhere. The source site says, " Further reproduction of the material should not be undertaken without consulting the Webmaster." It is unlikely that it was first published in the USA, so the pre-1923 date is not relevant. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I selected the PD US option as I didn't see a PD UK option. The person depicted died in 1918 in South Africa. Thus the photo had to be published before his death, which would make it PD in the UK and US. If its PD its hard for a webmaster to claim copyright surely? Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete UK copyright requires the photographer, not subject, have died 70 years ago. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment Several notes for Gbawden:
- As King of Hearts has pointed out, in the UK, copyright runs for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Therefore, unless the photographer is known to have died before 1942, we generally do not assume any image made after 1880 is PD -- that date assumes a photographer born in 1860 who lives to age 82 and even with that date we might be wrong by twenty years in exceptional cases.
- The fact that a person died in 1918 says nothing about when the image was first published. From time to time we see images of people that came out of family albums that have never been published before appearing here. That's relevant in the USA and other countries that measure copyright by publication date, but not, as noted above, for the UK.
- The reason the USA has a special template is that its rules are different from the rest of the world. For the UK and other places where the rule is 70 years pma (post mortem auctoris), the appropriate template is {{PD-OLD}}.
- . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a 1899 South African image. It is possible, but by no means certain, that the photograper died before 1942, if it was first published in a 70pma country. Without knowing either where it was first published or when the photgrapher died, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The subject is a UK citizen, so it is likely this was first published there. It was probably taken around 1917 and certainly before the subject's death in 1931. It is possible, but unlikely that the photgorapher died before 1942 as we would need. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case wouldn't PD-UKGov apply? It looks like an official photo Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The subject is a South African. If it was first published in South Africa, then it is OK (50 years after pub), but if it was first published in Britain -- likely as the VC is a British award, then it is 70 years PMA and may well not be out of copyright for some time. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that this photo was taken in 1917/1918 when he was awarded the medal. He is only wearing one medal - later on in his career he would be awarded more. 1918 would meet the 70yrs rule. Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- The UK rule is 70 years pma (post mortem auctoris -- after the death of the author), so unless the photographer is known to have died before 1942, the image is not PD if first published in the UK. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Offensichtlich falsche Angaben (Gleichheit von dargestellter Person und Bildautor) Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
seems broken file Effeietsanders (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
seems broken file Effeietsanders (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
seems broken file Effeietsanders (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
official lofo, must be fair use only Odessey (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution for own, missing original camera exif, other author in exif - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted content. A.Savin 21:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution for own work - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Outside of project scope. Uploaded to be used in an English Wikipedia article (supposedly of the subject), which has been speedily deleted. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Work of Mirsad Begić, born 1953. The file is ineligible for Commons per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.138.246 16:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The file has been superseded by WinSCP Logo with much better quality. Furthermore the new file is a copy directly taken from WinSCP source code with proper license indication, whereas the file on this page is actually licensed as a screenshot neither properly attributing it to the original author nor indicating the license of the actual source file. Patrick87 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
no longer needed Mhar ren (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Represents a sculpture by Pol Bury (d. 2005). France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even though the sculpture is mentioned in the file description, it's not exactly avoidable if you want to take a photo from this angle of view. Want to walk closer to get past it? Another set of metal balls greets you ahead. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is De minimis and ok. this is not. By the way, focus on the metal spheres, not the building. Léna (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you KoH that's impossible not to include any part of the sculpture. In this case however the framing deliberately features the spheres as an important part of the composition, so it's not De Minimis. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete focus is on the artwork, the sculpture is the main element of the composition (Rule of thirds) --PierreSelim (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no-fop + DM can't apply. Kyro (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per Jastrow and PierreSelim. The artwork is too central to the photograph to be DM. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Antonio Hernando Vera (simply Antonio Hernando) is a Spanish politician from the main centre-left party (and the picture is his). Of course, we don't know whether the Antonio Hernando here has the rights of the pictures of the real person. I'd close this nomination and simply ask for permission. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per information provided by Ecemaml. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Haematopus unicolor Hullmandel.jpg should be used instead of this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totodu74 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate with less resolution and worse colour. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not the author's "own work" (it's from the Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms, addressed to Martin Armstrong). This is not useful as an image or media file. The uploader might have meant to upload to Wikisource. JFHJr (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is {{PD-USGov}}. However, is it useful? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Questionable whether it is in scope, and uploader hasn't come forward with any rationale as to why it is. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by VernoWhitney as no permission (no permission since) INeverCry 17:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Spam (see the username of the user). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious educational value, not in COM:SCOPE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by VernoWhitney as no permission (no permission since) INeverCry 17:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Spam (see the username of the user). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious educational value, not in COM:SCOPE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - it is in scope in my opinion. It could be a good picture to illustrate dog-human relationships, and is relatively high quality. --whym (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per whym. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly copyrighted. Yann (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Depiction of a copyrighted statue by Alain Aslan (still alive). France has no freedom of panorama. Same problem with:
- File:Vue de la tombe de la chanteuse Dalida.JPG
- File:Grafmonument-dalida.jpg: OTRS ticket probably only covers the picture itself, not the artwork. User:Jean-Frédéric, who is an OTRS volunteer, couldn't find the ticket; perhaps it's from another OTRS file to which he hasn't got access.
Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket mentioned is in the info-nl queue (wikiportret) and thus not accessable for everyone. See also here. Trijnsteltalk 10:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is indeed no permission from the artist. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete - seems to be a non free logo [12] Traumrune (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hope_and_Homes_for_Children_logo.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Work of Stane Kregar (1905-1973) or Milan Bizovičar (1927-2006), therefore still copyrighted Sreejith K (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is ambiguous case. I am awaiting Slovene Intellectual Property Institute's explanation wether the copyright prohibitions hold for details of works shown at public places. --Miha (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment UPDATE: Still no response from IPI. --Miha (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No response from Copyright holder. MBisanz talk 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gampe as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted and watermarked by ČUZK - www.cuzk.cz Sreejith K (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Map was created 1826 - 1843, thus PD license is valid (even there is copyright claim by institution, that scanned the map). In comply with Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. --Jklamo (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright (if any) is expired and this is an official work, so would be in PD anyway, I believe. --Mormegil (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per DR. MBisanz talk 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This map is a derivative of an unknown map, which could be copyrighted. I've tagged it with {{Dw-nsd}} at first, but the creator (User:AleXXw) expressed his opinion on my talk page that it is based on data that are not copyrightable (he listed some standard copyrighted maps, but did not specify the source he used),[13] therefore I'm nominating it here to go through the regular process. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- My whole argumentation you can find @Eleassars talk page. Best --AleXXw 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is correct that facts do not have a copyright. However, representations of facts, that is texts, drawings, maps, and so forth do have copprights. Unless this was made from a freely licensed base map, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is certainly copyrighted. Yann (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Euh, à ce moment-là, il faudrait supprimer (presque) l'ensemble de la catégorie Cosplay, non ? Dark Attsios (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ou encore la Category:Imperial stormtroopers... non, vraiment, je ne comprends pas. Comment se fait-il que de telles catégories puissent subsister si les cosplays sont interdits ? Dark Attsios (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Même remarque, ce ne sont que des costumes, certainement pas des marques ou je ne sais quoi. La licence sur filkr est égallement correcte. A noter qu'il s'agit du même débat pour Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garde Jaffa cropped.png, qui est une version découpée et retouchée de celle-çi. Prométhée33 (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ou encore la Category:Imperial stormtroopers... non, vraiment, je ne comprends pas. Comment se fait-il que de telles catégories puissent subsister si les cosplays sont interdits ? Dark Attsios (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We delete cosplay images when they are particularly focused on the costume itself. Here, it even shows two others on the side, so I think this is COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Garde Jaffa is the main subject of this picture, so it can't be de minimis. Yann (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
La ragazza celeste che saluta il sole Floris Serra.G (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This logos aren't original. If they are inelegible for copyright, the they should be PD
RalgisWM-CR 04:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the first one, and Keep the second as {{PD-textlogo}}. The letters in the first one looks hardly in a standard typeface. --whym (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per whym. First deleted, second kept. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Russian Racing (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtuful authorship. Images without exif, or taken with 9 different cameras. Some images are different authors (watermarked or in exif). Some of them can be found on the internet.
- File:Кейтеринг.jpg
- File:Летняя трасса Тушино.jpg
- File:Зимняя трасса.jpg
- File:Летняя трасса.jpg - author "Nikita Gudkov" in exif
- File:Трибуны.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Картинг.jpg
- File:АВД.jpg - published here in 2011 (click IMG_3410.jpg link on down of page)
- File:Шатер2.jpg
- File:Шатер1.jpg
- File:RRC4.jpg - published here (photo 2 in second photo block)
- File:RRC5.jpg
- File:RRC3.jpg - author "Simonov Mikael" in exif
- File:RRC .jpg
- File:RRC1.jpg
- File:Трек День5.jpg
- File:Трек День4.jpg
- File:Трек День3.jpg
- File:Трек День2.jpg
- File:Трек День1.jpg - published in May, uploaded in July
- File:Макет2.jpg - copyrighted logos on scheme, published in February (uploaded in July)
- File:Макет1.jpg - copyrighted logos on scheme
- File:Презентация RRC2.jpg - published here before upload, here in May (upload in July)
- File:Presentation RRC.jpg
- File:Вип зона Тушино.jpg - "BY ANDREY BUZIN" in exif, published here
- File:ГранПри5.jpg
- File:ГранПри4.jpg
- File:ГранПри3.jpg
- File:ГранПри1.jpg
- File:ГранПри2.jpg
- File:Автоэкзотика5.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Автоэкзотика4.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Автоэкзотика6.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Автоэкзотика1.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Автоэкзотика2.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Автоэкзотика3.jpg - "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" on image and in exif
- File:Show SKI.jpg] - published in June, uploaded in July
- File:Schmitz und Billich.jpg - published in June, uploaded in July
- File:Trailer 120.jpg - published in June, uploaded in July
- File:Fahrzeuge.jpg - published here, in June (uploaded in July) and here (video frame)
- File:Porsche td4.jpg
- File:Porsche td5.jpg
- File:Porsche td1.jpg
- File:Porsche td2.jpg
- File:Porsche td3.jpg
- File:Tushino shema.jpg - published on many sites, for example here in June 2012 (uploaded in July). Copyrighted logos on scheme
- File:Tushino trassa.jpg
- File:MitJet 2etap 2012.jpg - watermarked, author "Norcoman.Livejournal.com" in exif
- File:Tushino Ring proezd.jpg - published here
- File:Рубен Шумеев.jpg
Art-top (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Russian Racing (talk · contribs)
[edit]New files by user. Taken with different cameras, can be found in the internet, some of them have other authors in exif. Doubtful authorship. Some of them marked as copyvio.
- File:Автомобиль Президента республики Татарстан Рустама Минниханова, гонка Объединенного заезда 2000.jpg
- File:Класс Национальный. 1 этап, Смоленское кольцо.jpg
- File:«LADA Granta» Михаила Козловского заглохла и выбыла из гонки.jpg
- File:Награждение победителей второй гонки класса Супер-Продакшн. Нижегородское кольцо, 16-17 июня..jpg
- File:6 этап RRC 2012.jpg
- File:GT-Rus.jpg
- File:Формула-Россия.jpg
- File:Национальный.jpg
- File:МитДжет.jpg
- File:Легендс.jpg
- File:Туринг.jpg
- File:Туринг-лайт.JPG
- File:Супер-продакшн.jpg
- File:Презентация.jpg
Art-top (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Attempted Flickrwashing of non-free Internet images, including photos by AFP photographers. All files were uploaded to Flickr just two days before they were uploaded here, so it's quite obvious that A.Ashba is controlling the ArsAgraphy Flickr account.
It's possible that A.Ashba is a sockpuppet of WikIunker, as both have uploaded the same copyright violations, and both have edited en:Lazika.
- File:National Defence Academy of Georgia.jpg: Obviously not the Flickr user's own work. It's possible that {{PD-GE-exempt}} applies.
- File:Lazika IFV.jpg: Previously uploaded as File:Lazika.jpg by WikIunker and deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WikIunker. Google results.
- File:Georgian Troops in Lopota gorge.jpg: Clearly watermarked AFP photo by Gedenidze Irakli.[14]
- File:Georgian special forces officer.jpg: Found here since August. Google results.
- File:Georgian UAV.jpg: Google results.
- File:Didgori cabine.jpg: Found here since August.
- File:Didgori-1.jpg
- File:Didgori-2.jpg: Found here since August.
- File:Didgori-2 minigun.jpg: Found here since August.
- File:Georgian cadets of NDAG.jpg: Taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/67970322@N04/7738382938, which is clearly marked as non-free. The real photographer is Kakha Gogicha for President.gov.ge according to the metadata of the original.
- File:National defence academy of Georgian dining room.jpg: Taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/moegovge/6155147532, which is clearly marked as non-free.
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear case, I will check for sockpuppets. Martin H. (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we deleted the draft ? Another table was created. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request: File:Dasault Aviation Organigram (2012)-fr.svg. -- Common Good (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
-fr.svg){kind=link}
Unused documents without permission.
Art-top (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ernestina Herrera de Noble
[edit]
Those files became public domain in Argentina in 2009 and 1997. They were not free in 1996, the URAA date, and they are not free in the US --Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/album covers. No evidence of permission.
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Screen 1.jpg
- File:3W (Cztery Pory Rapu 2CD).jpg
- File:3W (praca w studiu).jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Cztery Pory Rapu (Vinyl).jpg
- File:Szad - 21 Gramów (Kup).jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Inni Niż Wszyscy.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Dolina Klaunoow.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Cztery Pory Rapu (Reedycja).jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Cztery Pory Rapu 2CD.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Cztery Pory Rapu.jpg
- File:Szad - 21 Gramów.jpg
- File:Poetikanonim - ...Od Zawsze Tu Byłem.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Złodzieje Czasu.jpg
- File:Peo-ete-ik - Demo.jpg
- File:Nullo - Wszystko Rymowanym Słowem.jpg
- File:Nullo - WRS.jpg
.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}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution for own work, missing original exif, can be found in the internet on different sites - doubtful authorship.
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Screen 2.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Screen 4.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Screen 5.jpg
- File:Trzeci Wymiar - Screen 3.jpg
- File:Nullo, Pork.jpg
Art-top (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by PierreSelim Morning ☼ (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:A Monguor woman is milling millet..JPG
- File:A noble lady in Jiarong, Sichuan..jpg
- File:My grandma's family in Sanchuan, Qinghai..JPG
- File:Zhuang Xueben's travel note.JPG
- File:On the way to Golog, Qinghai.jpg
- File:A Qiang woman in Aba, Sichuan.jpg
- File:Zhuang Xueben.jpg
- File:The Complete Works of Zhuang Xueben.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aliahmed47 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Passing Out Celebration.jpg
- File:Batch Photo.jpg
- File:Wooden Anchor.jpg
- File:Cadet Saluting at Quarter Deck.jpg
- File:Merchant navy ranks.jpg
- File:Graduation Ceremony.jpg
- File:Quaid Block.jpg
- File:Passing out Parade of Pakistan Marine Academy.jpg
- File:Guest Night.jpg
- File:Passing out Parade.jpg
- File:Inter City Declamation Contest.jpg
- File:Declamation Contest.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johana oliva (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Atalahalta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Promotional material of organization with questionable notability. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raoul cérusier (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern comics. No evidence of permission.
- File:Press-portrait.jpg
- File:Fog-t04-i13.jpg
- File:Fog-t04-i09.jpg
- File:QSLV-image-00.jpg
- File:QSLV-image-06b.jpg
- File:CHOB-image22.jpg
- File:B-I-image-01.jpg
- File:B-I-image-07.jpg
- File:CHOB-image64.jpg
- File:Lhomki03.jpg
- File:Lhomki02.jpg
- File:Lhomki01.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HuracánRojinegro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Estadio Metropolitano Huracán Rojinegro.jpg
- File:Banda del Cementerio.jpg
- File:Huracan Rojinegro en puerto ordaz campeones.jpg
- File:Barra lionza.jpg
- File:Burra brava 1.jpg
- File:Burra brava 2.jpg
- File:Huracán Rojinegro robando a la barra Lanceros Rojinegros.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Ceubbase.jpg
- File:Campeoes.JPG
- File:Tourtaça.jpg
- File:Brasiliaflamengo.jpg
- File:Equipe Uniceub BRB Brasília.jpg
- File:MascoteBrasília.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlosss27 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChargerRay (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:Chargerray13.jpg
- File:Charger Ray 131.jpg
- File:Charger Ray13.jpg
- File:Charger Ray.jpg
- File:Charger ray... Plus Size Model (29).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Buildings created after 1945, no evidence that their architect died before this year, which make these files ineligible for Commons (per COM:FOP#Slovenia).
- File:BS3Ljubljana.jpg - work of sl:Ilija Arnautović (1924-2009), undelete in 2080
- File:Kozolec-Ljubljana.JPG - work of sl:Edo Mihevc (1911-1985), undelete in 2056
- File:Ljubljana 086.JPG - unknown author
- File:R5building.jpg - Andrej Černigoj, Jadranka Grmek, team Genius Loci
- File:SLO-Ljubljana34.JPG - built in 1962[15], work by Boris Kobe (d. 1981)
- File:Štepanjsko naselje - Angelce Ocepkove.JPG - work of
the Ljubljana Faculty of ArchitectureVladimir Brezar (1935-)[16] - File:Štepanjsko naselje - Ob sotočju.JPG - work of
the Ljubljana Faculty of ArchitectureVladimir Brezar (1935-)[17] - File:Štepanjsko naselje - Skopska ulica.JPG - work of
the Ljubljana Faculty of ArchitectureVladimir Brezar (1935-)[18] - File:Štepanjsko naselje.JPG - work of
the Ljubljana Faculty of ArchitectureVladimir Brezar (1935-)[19]
Eleassar (t/p) 20:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the Štepanjsko naselje ones, Delete the rest. I don't think nondescript apartment buildings have enough originality for COM:TOO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, the Faculty of Architecture of Ljubljana does not seem to agree, because if they thought it didn't surpass the TOO, they would not list this neighbourhood among their projects. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- What has to be considered in regard to copyright are both urban planning and architecture. I haven't found an article discussing the architecture of this particular settlement, but on the other hand, one has this or this settlement, both discussed in detail as an original work. Regarding Štepanjsko naselje, one may also see that the shape and colour of appartment blocks and the spatial arrangement of buildings and interim areas have been careful planned and are unique and thus surpass the threshold of originality. It's not only simple geometrical shapes like in the logo you cited. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can generate a lot of discussion on anything. Just take a look at this multi-page document: File:Best Western Logo.pdf. (Just to clarify, I'm not saying that these apartments are similar to the Best Western logo; I'm using it to illustrate my point that using primary sources to back to claims of originality are often invalid, plus that just because you can say a lot about an image doesn't mean it's copyrightable.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- This was not a primary source and not just some random babble, but a description from the selection of most notable architectural works from Slovenia, and was given for a comparison to Štepanjsko naselje, which seems to me to include a similar amount of originality, as also explained above. Of course, it's just my personal opinion, but at least as much based on reliable sources as yours. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- By "primary source," I was referring to the page by the faculty. Yes, your later links could be considered reliable. However, determining TOO isn't just be based on reliable sources; often in DRs about TOO or DM issues, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Moreover sources may be reliable in the sense that what they're saying is right, but just because they're saying it doesn't make it pass TOO, because (again) you can say a lot about uncopyrightable things. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- The architect's name is Vladimir Brezar (1935-) and the work is mentioned among his projects here. (Some more examples of his work.) --Eleassar (t/p) 07:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- By "primary source," I was referring to the page by the faculty. Yes, your later links could be considered reliable. However, determining TOO isn't just be based on reliable sources; often in DRs about TOO or DM issues, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Moreover sources may be reliable in the sense that what they're saying is right, but just because they're saying it doesn't make it pass TOO, because (again) you can say a lot about uncopyrightable things. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- This was not a primary source and not just some random babble, but a description from the selection of most notable architectural works from Slovenia, and was given for a comparison to Štepanjsko naselje, which seems to me to include a similar amount of originality, as also explained above. Of course, it's just my personal opinion, but at least as much based on reliable sources as yours. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can generate a lot of discussion on anything. Just take a look at this multi-page document: File:Best Western Logo.pdf. (Just to clarify, I'm not saying that these apartments are similar to the Best Western logo; I'm using it to illustrate my point that using primary sources to back to claims of originality are often invalid, plus that just because you can say a lot about an image doesn't mean it's copyrightable.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep Photos of Štepanjsko naselje: Industrial design, ineligible for copyright.
& Keep File:Kozolec-Ljubljana.JPG: photo of a square, building is de minimis. M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- The title and the description of the image is Kozolec, which is the name of the building, and it is in the centre of the image, thus not de minimis, but a deliberate depiction.
- I don't know what does industrial design mean in this context. It seems like an original work that is per reliable sources counted among the most notable projects of the architect and the faculty. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Photo name is Kozolec-Ljubljana.JPG not just Kozolec. It doesn't matter if the building is in the centre of the picture or not. See File:Louvre at night centered.jpg with copyrighted element in the centre of the picture - this photo serves as an example of de minimis concept. Photo Kozolec-Ljubljana.JPG shows a large public square in Ljubljana, therefore surrounding building are de minimis.
- About Štepanjsko naselje: I can't understand how residential complex like this could be called a work of art. This type of architecture can be seen everywhere and it's not original enough to be under copyright. The project description in architect's portfolio can't change this.— M♦Zaplotnik
my contributions15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- About Štepanjsko naselje: I can't understand how residential complex like this could be called a work of art. This type of architecture can be seen everywhere and it's not original enough to be under copyright. The project description in architect's portfolio can't change this.— M♦Zaplotnik
- Squares (including this one, as far as I know work of Milan Mihelič, please correct me if I'm wrong) are actually copyrighted too (see [20]). However, the photo shows the square poorly and the building clearly; the title Kozolec-Ljubljana simply designates the context of the building, meaning the Kozolec building in the city of Ljubljana; the description (currently) includes only the name of the building (Kozolec) and its location (Ljubljana), nothing else.
- Factors in judging whether a work is copyrightable are colours, shapes, and the arrangment of buildings and the interim surfaces. The shape and colour of appartment blocks and the spatial arrangement of buildings and interim areas in Štepanjsko naselje were created by a plan and diversely, which is particularly evident from the last image and means that they surpass the threshold of originality. Can you provide an example of a neighbourhood just like this? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: France is the only country where there is case law showing that all architecture is not copyrightable. Elsewhere, including the USA, every architectural work has a copyright. In addition, I think that the fenestration substanially exceeds any TOO. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Breno da Maria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private photoalbum - out of project scope.
- File:Yo no te entiendo.jpg
- File:O MITO..jpg
- File:Papai 2.0.jpg
- File:Pra amiga bafuda.jpg
- File:Uh Papai chegou!.jpg
- File:De Patra.jpg
Art-top (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrey Zlobin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scans of old 1930s/1940s works. No infos on true author / permission. Almost certain copyvio.
- File:Подготовка плана Берлинской операции. Слева направо Телегин К.Ф., Жуков Г.К., Малинин М.С., Варенников И.С..jpg
- File:Парад «Декларация о поражении Германии».jpg
- File:В полях.jpg
- File:Сталинградский фронт.jpg
- File:Вручение "Ордена Ленина".jpg
- File:Командирские курсы 1920.jpg
- File:Марш победителей.tif
- File:Сталинградский фронт.tif
- File:Красноармеец Варенников И.С. 1920г..pdf
A.Savin 20:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is obviously unwilling or unable to tell the difference between their own work and other people's stuff grabbed off the Internet. 28 out of the 36 files uploaded by Lzdimitar since September 2011 have already been deleted as copyright violations, and the user has been blocked twice for uploading copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims. The photos listed below were clearly not taken by a single person.
- File:Aeroflot VQ-BCP at Sofia Airport.jpg: Taken with a Fujifilm FinePix S8000fd on 19 October 2010
- File:Bourgas Airport aircrafts.jpg: Taken with a Sony NEX-5N on 18 June 2012
- File:Bulgaria Air head office.jpg: Taken with a Canon EOS 40D on 10 August 2012. Found here before it was uploaded to Commons.
- File:The new contol tower at Sofia Airport.jpg: Taken with a Canon EOS 450D on 14 September 2012. Found here before it was uploaded to Commons.
- File:RA-82046 Volga Dnepr Sofia, Bulgaria.jpg: Taken with a Canon EOS 7D on 9 October 2012
- File:Austrian Airline logojet at Sofia Airport.jpg: Taken with a Canon EOS 7D on 10 October 2012
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
PHotos have a variety of cameras, copyright holders, etc in the EXIF data. It may be the uploader has permission, in which case they need to do COM:OTRS within 7 days for these images.
- File:LOT Polish Airlines SP-LIO ERJ 170-200LR.jpg
- File:Qatar Airways Airbus A320-232 A7-AHG.jpg
- File:Bulgaria Air Force Airbus A319 at Sofia Airport.jpg
- File:Tatarstan Airlines VQ-BAP at Sofia Airport.jpg
- File:Tyrolean Airways OE-LVG at Sofia Airport.jpg
- File:Turkish Airlines Airbus A330-203 at Sofia Airport.jpg
- File:Mahan Air A300B4-603.jpg
- File:Air Berlin D-AHXC.jpg
- File:Turkish Airlines 10.11.2010.jpg
- File:Swiss European Air Lines 28.09.2010.jpg
russavia (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Three blocks and still not the slightest willingness to grasp of what "Own work" means or what this site is about. Time for an indefinite block. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer to AGF but in this instance it is impossible to do. I have indeffed them given numerous blocks. I'll leave it up to others to delete the images if they don't come back within 7 days with valid OTRS. russavia (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted JurgenNL (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kaarthik.R.Pillai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robbydalores (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private photos - out of project scope.
- File:The CaliBoyzClub.jpg
- File:KaceyKhaliel.jpg
- File:Producer Kacey Khaliel.jpg
- File:Kacey Khaliel In Studio.jpg
Art-top (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
File has a copyright watermark and appears to have been flickr laundered DAJF (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That Photo
Good day DAJF! I have been read about a copyright watermark of this file.But I don't want to hessitate this but to proudly to say that this photo is so nice to appear in wikipedia.However,I will going to help this,that is why I will able to cope with this action,so I requsted to you not to make judgement but never to put this as the most copyrighted file that you have been seen for. I hope you will accept my appreciation and understanding.Thank you! User:RenRen070193
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No source, author, or publication information. Kelly (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: subject died 131 years ago, must be old enough to be PD Jcb (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
no source and no author given and can't be located by me, claim to PD-old-100 must be sustained by facts, reason for last close was trivial Hekerui (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - We cannot tell if this painting was done when the subject was alive or 5 years ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The architect, Robert Danis, died in 1949, so not in DP before 2020 (or until FoP in France). VIGNERON (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Deleted: The building (i.e. the church) is copyrighted until 2020 (70 years pma) PierreSelim (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Restored as we have now 2020. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not a painting of Jacek Malczewski but a poor quality replica by an art aficionado. The listed source no longer exists (if it ever existed... it looks misspelled). The style and quality of brushwork is considerably different from the master. Poeticbent talk 04:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Another source: [21] or [22] Staszek99 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please look again. Your 2nd source: artyzm.com claims as follows. Źródło: Galeria Malarstwa Polskiego - Pinakoteka but the painting is not there. You can find it's another scanned copy at this address where you can also examine it more closely. All works by Malczewski are signed. This one is not. The painting style is completely different from what I know about Malczewski's technique. I'm an artist myself, and I've seen many of his originals while in Krakow. This is not his hand. Poeticbent talk 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK! I give up... Staszek99 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please look again. Your 2nd source: artyzm.com claims as follows. Źródło: Galeria Malarstwa Polskiego - Pinakoteka but the painting is not there. You can find it's another scanned copy at this address where you can also examine it more closely. All works by Malczewski are signed. This one is not. The painting style is completely different from what I know about Malczewski's technique. I'm an artist myself, and I've seen many of his originals while in Krakow. This is not his hand. Poeticbent talk 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
дубликат файла Laki 2.JPG kosun (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible flickr washing, can be found here, Foto di Christian Dex © Ver Sacrum Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it looks like the Flickr user is the same as the attributed author. They could licence the Flickr images differently to the source you gave. IMHO this is unlikely flickrwashing. Ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Weil ich wahrscheinlich das Urheberrecht verletzt habe. Tut mir leid. Ich habe auch diesen Button zu spät entdeckt. Mummelgrummel 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wenn es jedoch niemand so sieht wie ich (bisher gibt es keine Diskussion dazu) und die Datei bis Ende November nicht gelöscht wird, dann binde ich - so war es von Anfang an meine Absicht - die Datei im Wikipedia-Artikel Ökolopoly ein.
Deleted: INeverCry 21:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Weil ich wahrscheinlich das Urheberrecht verletzt habe. Tut mir leid. Ich habe auch diesen Button zu spät entdeckt. Mummelgrummel 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Wenn es jedoch niemand so sieht wie ich (bisher gibt es keine Diskussion dazu) und die Datei bis Ende November nicht gelöscht wird, dann binde ich - so war es von Anfang an meine Absicht - die Datei im Wikipedia-Artikel Ökolopoly ein.
Deleted: INeverCry 21:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This came from VI, it can't be here. Fry1989 eh? 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the same picture, i have drawn it myself. You can see differences if you look closely. I just used the vectorimages picture as model. Sorry my bad english. --Jam123 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- They look exactly the same to me, to every detail. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a bigger image that i used as model: [23]. For exampe look at the text and the red ribbon. --Jam123 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- They look exactly the same to me, to every detail. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The VI preview is 200 x 217. If this didn't look like the VI version, we might have to delete it for being wrong. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um what??? That makes absolutely no sense, they look exactly the same, and VI images aren't allowed on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Eh... Have you even tried to find the differences that i pointed out? The VI image is the only good pic of this emblem i found, so i had to base my work on it. It is not the VI picture, but of course it looks like it because it's based on it. --Jam123 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been looking at the two very closely indeed. I'm not ready to say they're the same yet, but it's very very very close, so much so that I can't find differences. Usually when someone bases something off something else, there will be noticeable differences, very minor ones at least. I just don't know. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Eh... Have you even tried to find the differences that i pointed out? The VI image is the only good pic of this emblem i found, so i had to base my work on it. It is not the VI picture, but of course it looks like it because it's based on it. --Jam123 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um what??? That makes absolutely no sense, they look exactly the same, and VI images aren't allowed on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the VI version, because both are based on the same source, the official version. Keep it.--Antemister (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it is, it can not be here, that is a simple fact. VI images are not allowed on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 21:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
If VI redraws the official version, and an editor here also redraws the official version, the results will show little difference. We cannot delete a PD image because VI claims copyright on their redrawing of that image.--Antemister (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're basing that on the assumption that VI had an official source. The uploader already admitted he based it off VI. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have several sources where I can fidn exactly that image. They are about 20 years old. VI.com did not invent that image.--Antemister (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You can see basically the same shapes in the Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1), p. 161, though there are some differences in the colors... AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took a close look on the end of the wheat at the bottom of the image. The shapes of the yellow wheat straws are different from those on VI, especially those on the right. IMO this image seems not to be from VI. Keep -- Ericmetro (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone close that DR? We had that discussion on VI several times, at the end, the file was kept.--Antemister (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears the image was going to be kept, so I went ahead and fulfilled the requested move to File:Emblem of Mozambique.svg. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Even though the file might have been based on the VI image, I guess that noone can copyright the blazon. (And since there are a lot of other sources confirming that the COA looks like this, it's a keep.) odder (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
