Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_init_config.PNG){kind=link}
![100 File:"Sin miedo a la muerte".JPG](#File:"Sin_miedo_a_la_muerte".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: a bit over the top to see an issue here Denniss (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Elvey as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louvre_Museum_Inverted_pyramid_01.JPG&oldid=172552486 Elvey (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and first DR (above). There is no FoP in France. --★ Poké95 00:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep What do we see? A simple stone pyramid, a solid that exists for thousand of years. Nothing creative and so no FOP problem. Tm (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? Uh, no, Tm. I see something very different. I see two pyramids. One is stone, one is glass and the same apparent size as the other one and mentioned in the name of the file - "Inverted pyramid". It's the one causing the FoP issue. Have you ever been to the Louvre? The pyramids are part of the building, Perhaps you not realize that; having never been? --Elvey (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 | Deleted COM:FOP / France. the architect (w:I M Pei) is still alive. --Elvey (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC) ~~~~ |
Comment Two piramids, one made of stone, another made of glass. Pyramids exist as\in buildings for almost 5 thousand years, so in shape they have no original or novelty value and the materials also are used for thousands of years. As this image only shows the very tip of this similar pyramids in its most basic element, nothing depicted in this image can be copyrighted and this DR is pure copyright paranoia. Tm (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept: nothing copyrightable here. --Denniss (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: sadly a derivative work Denniss (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per NoFoP-France Denniss (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Failed Flickr review "This image was originally posted to Flickr by paukrus at http://flickr.com/photos/26244825@N05/4042276778. It has been reviewed on 6 November 2012, 21:50:07 by FlickreviewR. However, the Flickr account is listed as Flickrwashing." MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: And by an indefed user. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.kosi.co/index.php/who-is-kosi/gangaji CambridgeBayWeather Talk 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please close this I meant to tag this as a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 01:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of movie Razimantv (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC){{Speedy}} instead -- Razimantv (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of movie Razimantv (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC){{Speedy}} instead -- Razimantv (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of movie Razimantv (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC){{Speedy}} instead -- Razimantv (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
a pedido do autor Ministerio viver em cristo (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
a pedido do autor Ministerio viver em cristo (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Because it have some visual errors Liugaila (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Because it have some visual errors Liugaila (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please delete. Duplicate of Karen zoid in 2009.jpg Sorry Gbawden (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The poster is the major part of the work, and presumably copyrighted, and since it's 2D, does not benefit from {{FOP-UK}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Seems a clear case of derivative work; almost the whole of the photo being a billboard. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, created to vandalise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Francis&oldid=508716831 Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Private joke/vandalism image. Infrogmation (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Low quality penis self-photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Low quality out of focus photo of common object Commons has many high quality photos of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nikbot as no license (no license) - unused personal pic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, orphan yoinked unlicensed image Infrogmation (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Facebook 186.173.152.81 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: possibly copyvio, from Facebook. --Kadı Message 07:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
copyvio, from a picture of http://www.buddalbright.com/ :© 2012 Budd Albright Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Geagea (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
i want to delete it Kingroyos (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: not valid reason to del INeverCry 03:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
infringe copyright of this site http://www.lematinal.com/news/local-news/2495-funerailles-detat-pour-james-burty-david.html Kingroyos (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Thank you for your honesty; do not upload further copyright violations in the future or you may be blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
on the picture is written: all rights reserved... Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - user's other uploads have been copyvios INeverCry 03:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The picture doesn't seem to be in scope, and rather be a persona use picture. (or a test upload?) Effeietsanders (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "Test upload" sounds plausible. Poor quality; absent good explanation from uploader explaining how this might be useful, looks like out of scope --Sphilbrick (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1963 painting. There is no evidence the uploader has permission to license this work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1958 painting. There is no evidence the uploader has permission to license this work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1970 painting. There is no evidence the uploader has permission to license this work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1949 painting by an artist who lived until the 70s. There is no evidence the uploader has permission to license this work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
1967 painting. There is no evidence the uploader has permission to license this work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Image includes copyrighted logos. It also appears to come from a commercial publication. ˉanetode╦╩ 13:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This would more than meet the threshold of originality under UK law russavia (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A copyrighted poster. Eleassar (t/p) 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly makes these adverts free? Eleassar (t/p) 14:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- This adverts is everywhere. Doncsecz (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- This does not make them free; see COM:PRP. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No proof that the photo was originally published anonymously. Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it [the image] was originally published anonymously." They're missing. Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, same as here --Sporti (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like an orphan work, still copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Per [1]. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The same reason as here (both images are from the same collection): no evidence that the publication right has expired for this photograph. Eleassar (t/p) 08:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it wasn't published elsewhere before (which most likely was as a Legal deposit), it was published as a part of the National and University Library of Slovenia's photographic collection. --Sporti (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed in the above-linked DR. There is no clear evidence that it was published anywhere else before. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Being part of the museum collection = published. --Sporti (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the museum published them or kept them in boxes unavailable to the public is not known. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if they were kept in boxes, one still could ask for an access. Museums and galleries usually don't have space to display all their items, but all are still publicly accessible (eventhough some harder then others).--Sporti (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- How can you know that access was not restricted to the personnel? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Because a national museum can't deny access to the public. --Sporti (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per what do you think so? This is not "information of public character". --Eleassar (t/p) 11:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY 08:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private file storage. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete PDF file also out of scope at Wikisource. -Aleator (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Already circulated (cropped) before upload date via bergamonerazzurra.com (05.2011) = .jpeg (last modified: 03.2011) Gunnex (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded the wrong file (PEBCAK) Bfoley (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Unknown year, unknown author, unknown copyright status. No evidence that the image was originally published anonymously and early enough. Eleassar (t/p) 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: original photo names the photographer or studio [2]. It says "K. Schönbauer sc.". --Sporti (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: from sources I recall that this image is one of very few depicting Stefan, and most probably or very likely is identical with this one, uploaded to commons from the dLib. How similarity/identity of two digital (or classical photographic) images can possibly be verified? I think that two images exist: one is true photography (althought not knowing who preserves it today, and date is sure something between 1870 and 1880), and the orther is graphical representation (I guess K. Schoenbauer's engraving) based on this photography. Also - what can be done - scientist's signature might be croped from image Sporti gave for infobox usual usage. --xJaM (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/hst/scientific-identity/fullsize/SIL14-S006-02a.jpg){kind=link}
- Thank you very much for providing this info. I agree - the image listed here is only a reproduction without a sufficient creative contribution to make it a copyrightable work on its own. I'll add this information to it. If the photo was truly made in 1870s to 1880s, it is in the public domain in my opinion (based on my experience, the limit should be set somehow in the period 1890-1895 - 120 years ago). I'm not sure why dLib lists 19? as the date of its creation (as you know, Stefan died in 1893).[3] Perhaps this refers only to "Copy of the document" (written in the Notes - Opombe). It is also possible that this is a mistake; it would not be the first one (see e.g. this image from the same collection and made in September 1905, but ascribed to I. Kotar, who per this article died in 1903). Or perhaps the image was published only in 19?, in which case it would be a problem, because there is no reliable source stating that it was originally published anonymously and potentially not enough time would have passed for it to be in the public domain. dLib has acquired it from here, but now the search there is inaccessible. Otherwise, there's no need to crop the signature for copyright reasons, but if you feel this should be done to increase the usability of the image in Wikipedia, feel free to do so, but upload the image under a different name. I'd wait though so long that this nomination is concluded. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was published after his death in Almanach der Wiener Akademie 1893 [4]--Sporti (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination. This is early enough for the image to be in the public domain both in the source country and the United States. Thanks a lot. I'm not sure who keeps the image: there does not seem to be an entity named Austrian Academy of Sciences and Arts (though there is the Austrian Academy of Sciences). --Eleassar (t/p) 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was published after his death in Almanach der Wiener Akademie 1893 [4]--Sporti (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for providing this info. I agree - the image listed here is only a reproduction without a sufficient creative contribution to make it a copyrightable work on its own. I'll add this information to it. If the photo was truly made in 1870s to 1880s, it is in the public domain in my opinion (based on my experience, the limit should be set somehow in the period 1890-1895 - 120 years ago). I'm not sure why dLib lists 19? as the date of its creation (as you know, Stefan died in 1893).[3] Perhaps this refers only to "Copy of the document" (written in the Notes - Opombe). It is also possible that this is a mistake; it would not be the first one (see e.g. this image from the same collection and made in September 1905, but ascribed to I. Kotar, who per this article died in 1903). Or perhaps the image was published only in 19?, in which case it would be a problem, because there is no reliable source stating that it was originally published anonymously and potentially not enough time would have passed for it to be in the public domain. dLib has acquired it from here, but now the search there is inaccessible. Otherwise, there's no need to crop the signature for copyright reasons, but if you feel this should be done to increase the usability of the image in Wikipedia, feel free to do so, but upload the image under a different name. I'd wait though so long that this nomination is concluded. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.88 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia, a contemporary sculpture. Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Likely a copyright violation. And likely not within the project scope High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Russia. JuTa 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
unused lower quality duplicate of File:Anna Camaiti.jpg INeverCry 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal logo of drive-by uploader -- out of scope . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored this and placed it on the user's page. He had it weblinked there, which is why it didn't show up as in use. INeverCry 05:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No licence - in use despite, otherwise this would be a speedy deletion Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Missing lic -FASTILY 07:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not need it. It can be deleted.--Wiki Gh! (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. In addition it shows a registration plate, which we wouldn't want displayed --Sphilbrick (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
La persona ritratta nella foto sono io, nonostante io stessa l'abbia caricata qualche tempo fa, cancellatela pure! Non ne vedo più l'utilità. --Stefiro (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Communist propaganda for election negative campaigning Azsony (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't look like an own photograph, though I can't explain exactly what it is. In any case, it's a photograph of some important people, so it's in scope and isn't going to be deleted for non-copyright reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user with company username - also copyvio complex logo INeverCry 03:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a reproduction or copy of non-free media (i.e., a photograph of a television screen) and it's therefore non-free as well. Mathonius (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Image follows the exact contour of shadows and reflection in official photos, although the screenshot is under a free source copyright agreement, the problem is that the image of the phone in particular appears identical to ones used in official pages. Uploader claims that he used some official icon or image creator website hosted by Google to create the image, however I doubt it would allow users to hold the copyright of the image hence the official status remains unclear. YuMaNuMa (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio to me no matter how it was created. --Herby talk thyme 09:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Google provides a website to developers (http://android-ui-utils.googlecode.com/hg/asset-studio/dist/device-frames.html) that allows them to take screenshots and use official device images that are provided by the manufactures of the devices to allow you to "frame" your screenshot in one of the select devices found at (http://android-ui-utils.googlecode.com/hg/asset-studio/dist/device-frames.html) to make your screenshot or application look beautiful. These images are provided for free use by Google and the companies as stated in the footer of this website. (http://android-ui-utils.googlecode.com/hg/asset-studio/dist/device-frames.html) This website allows users to add an undershadow and a gloss to the photo. I don't know why the image is being flagged for deletion. The author (me) restored his Galaxy Nexus to stock Android 4.0.1 to obtain these screenshots for the users of Wikipedia. I suggest you visit the website that I have linked you to so that you are able to "get your facts in order". If you do not trust the authenticity of the website that I have provided with you, I suggest you check out the one that is available on Android.com by visiting this website -- http://developer.android.com/distribute/promote/device-art.html -- Jeffery Keel 5:15 PM, November 8th, 2012 (EST)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
12 uploads = 12 copyvios/problematic. This is the remaining one. Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Antiguo europeo, Old European, Alteuropäisch, topónimos con sufijo -antia,-antio en la Península Ibérica.jpg
[edit]
The background map shows the typical moiré pattern of a scanned map. An "own map" doesn't need a scan. NNW (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not needed, not used. Replaced in Dragonchess by 3 individual files ("upper board", "middle board", "lower board"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Work by architects Matevž Čelik and Saša Bunčić; built in 2002. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Built in Slovenia in 2002; therefore, per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Image already circulated in 2007 I and II or via http://www.pirotecniabadillo.com/articulos.html = http://www.pirotecniabadillo.com/php_html/11_6.jpg (last modified: 11.04.2008, 11:21:41) Gunnex (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not needed, not used. Was a trial graphic for use in Template:Algebraic notation. File 1.e4.png serves that role, instead. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not used, not needed. Was a trial graphic for use in Template:Algebraic notation. File 1.e4.png serves that role, instead. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
_init_config.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_init_config.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not needed, not used. An older form of Cubic Chess game, mistakenly used as lede image, and subsequently replaced. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
_init_config.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
_init_config.PNG){kind=link}
Built in 1935-39 upon the plans by the Croatian architect Franjo Lušičić. No evidence that the architect would have died before 1945. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The parrot in the logo would likely meet the threshold of originality. russavia (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm the one who added the {{PD-textlogo}} tag (instead of the uploader's patently false {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} claim). In my opinion, it's quite simple, but with File:Windows logo - 2006.svg (listed at Commons:Threshold of originality#Commons decisions) being kept while File:EDGE logo.svg/en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg (listed at Commons:Threshold of originality#United Kingdom) was deleted, I've all but given up trying to anticipate which way these cases go. I suppose it depends on any legal precedents in Gabon, which I know nothing about. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete I don't pretend to know how Gabon would interpret this, but in situations where it might be a close call elsewhere, we should follow the precautionary principle, and put the burden on the uploader to provide evidence it would be allowed, or delete. --Sphilbrick (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Non free media Bishnu_Saikia (Talk) 13:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No information about the author since 19 October 2012. Eleassar (t/p) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No source indicating that the logo of Laško would be free for commercial use. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the PD claim about this image based upon? Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. Eleassar (t/p) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also here. I would not want this image to be deleted without a good reason. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the PD claim about this image based upon? Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. Eleassar (t/p) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also here. I would not want this image to be deleted without a good reason. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
low quality files
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only logo of web site with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe the logo can be saved using Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademarked, and can be used in this article from the English Wikipedia. --UAwiki (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per UAwiki. Yann (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
![15:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/08#c-EugeneZelenko-2012-11-08T15:47:00.000Z-File:"Sin_miedo_a_la_muerte".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
![00:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/08#c-INeverCry-2012-11-15T00:23:00.000Z-File:"Sin_miedo_a_la_muerte".JPG){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Date of photo (2001) doesn't match EXIF (1999). User has no author uploads here or on fr.wp. There are many better substitutes in Category:South facade of the Basilique du Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre, so delete per COM:PRP. Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Uploader said "photo taken by a friend from his apartment" (La fotografía la ha sacado un amigo desde su apartamento). Can we accept this for PD-author? I don't think so. Rd232 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This image of a model of a soviet spacecraft prototype was surely not created by the NASA. A valid evidence for public domain is missing 178.2.63.5 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear who the author is, and therefore not possible to verify death date to check that PD-old applies. Rd232 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. JuTa 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Théo Tobiasse is dead this year. No freedom of panorama in France. Copyright violation. 83.204.215.111 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think PD-textlogo applies to this title card. It doesn't just consist of simple text; the green and black shapes are creative enough, so I think it meets the threshold of originality. Mathonius (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- So this one is a PD-textlogo, but the new one isn't? It's basically the same, they just updated it a bit, so I think this should not be deleted as the earlier version wasn't either. It's really dumb if you can never update the title card. --URunICon (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can use that analogy without actually explaining why these title cards are PD-textlogo. One copyright violation doesn't justify another one. Mathonius (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be deleted. It's ridiculous if this is a violation and the earlier isn't. It's basically the SAME, the article should however have an updated season 3 intertitle. --URunICon (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can use that analogy without actually explaining why these title cards are PD-textlogo. One copyright violation doesn't justify another one. Mathonius (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a picture of me that I would like deleted. I hadn't realized when I uploaded it to Wikipedia that it would be available on many search engines, and I'd prefer it not be here. If not deleted, I would at least like my name to be removed. Most importantly, I'd just like my name off of this. If you need to contact me, please contact me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Parodi 140.211.119.178 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think uploader's wishes ought to be respected when image not used, but this is used in several places. One option is for the uploader to take on the responsibility of finding alternatives in each case, or persuading editors to remove. Simply changing one's mind is not generally good enough. --Sphilbrick (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. There is also no indication that the author would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the architecture would be public domain (i.e. the architect died before 1945); also, no reliable source stating that the work was originally published anonymously or that the photographer died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The photo is from the archive of Murska Sobota Museum: author is absolute unknown. Doncsecz (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a reliable source stating that this work was originally published anonymously? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the Museum is this photo. Doncsecz (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a reliable source stating that this work was originally published anonymously and that the architecture would be free. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a reliable source stating that this work was originally published anonymously? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable source indicating that the work was originally published anonymously or that the author died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The museum also wrote, that the image is from the 1890s, but the author is unknown. Doncsecz (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source so that this may be verified? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- What source? In the Museum is this image. There is no source on the Internet. Doncsecz (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any written source where I and others can verify this? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- What source? In the Museum is this image. There is no source on the Internet. Doncsecz (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I asked, the author is Johann Klein from Radkersburg. I can not be retrieved the registration number of this photo. Doncsecz (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is needed is his birth and death year and a place where this can be verified. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a page about Johann Klein and his photo from 1890: therefore Johann Klein was born in second half of the 19th century and died in the first half of the 20th century. There's no way he lived in 1945. Doncsecz (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Where exactly? At my best will, I can't find this information in the cited page. This is a directory of web pages. Can you state which web page does it link to so that it may be verified whether it is a reliable source. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The google.at was given this link: Johann Klein is one of many Austrian photographers from the 19-20th century. Where can you find detailed informations on the Internet? Doncsecz (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still don't know which link was provided by Google - I don't see it among the results. In any case, 1945 is in the first half of the 20th century. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- In this the photo F0012656 is from Klein in 1910. In the dlib.si the photo of J. Borovnyák also dated the 19th century. Doncsecz (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, what is needed to clarify the copyright status of this image is his death year. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- And what determines it? Not from the internet. Johann Klein is Austrian photographer from the 19-20th century, ergo probably she died before 1945. The internet is not Holy Cow, no answer the accurate time. Doncsecz (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd conclude that due to lack of reliable information about the lifetime of J. Klein, it is not possible to determine the copyright status of this image. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source so that this may be verified? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No reliable source indicating that the author would have been dead for more than 70 years. Eleassar (t/p) 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This is a Hungarian map. In Hungary map before 1925 is public domain. Doncsecz (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a place, where this can be verified? Here this is not written. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In Hungary, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg){kind=link}
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. Eleassar (t/p) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg){kind=link}
- Also, File:Jože Plečnik (1943), Zbirka upodobitev znanih Slovencev NUK.jpg - Crop1.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg_-_Crop1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
,_Zbirka_upodobitev_znanih_Slovencev_NUK.jpg){kind=link}
- Switched to keep per same reason as here. INeverCry 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand very how it works here, so please excuse me if I make some mistake. I found this picture while I was wandering in Category:Fantasy, and it immediately catched my eyes: it looks very very similar to the old maps of World of Warcraft, and it seems, to me, as if it was made up by copying and pasting different pieces of them. The isle on the left, for example, is clearly Fenris Isle from Silverpine Forest; the lake at the bottom it's the Stonecairn Lake from Elwynn Forest, and just next to him you can find two of the water ponds in the south of the Wetlands; the upper and middle lake are the same lake from Feralas, and the snowy region is made up with pieces from Winterspring. And son on. Now, I'm pretty sure this is a copyright violation. The file page says it is used in zh:紫川, but that page has been deleted in 2009 (something about fiction and notability? I cannot read chinese...). -- Syrio posso aiutare? 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Syrio posso aiutare? 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's an obvious derivative work but I don't know whether the WB logo is protected or not Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am truely not sure on this, but would freedom of panorama be relevant here since the subject is a building in Australia? Or is it irrelevant since the logo is such a large part of the picture? Themeparkgc Talk 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Logo design is hardly protectable by copyright - too simple. Trademark at best. --Denniss (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you got any legal support for your statement? I'm not a lawyer, but Time Warner does not seem to accept their logos are ineligible for copyright or, at least, have a license compatible with ours. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: FOP applies. Yann (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on user's other uploads (eg File:Subte Olleros.jpg), this is in Buenos Aires. Argentina does not have Freedom of Panorama (Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina). Rd232 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- In fact File:Subte Olleros.jpg itself has a similar FOP issue. Rd232 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann per discussion SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
depends on Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Category scheme astronomy, that was deleted. Used about 300 times. Robot Monk (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by James Woodward SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bestand is na 5 jaar geleden geupload te zijn niet gebruikt, en kan derhalve dus verwijderd worden. Tubefreak (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Commons isn't just the database of files for Wikipedia. It is a database of files that have a free license. As was noted in the license agreement, this license can't be retracted. That the file isn't used on Wikipedia currently, isn't a reason to delete it. --Vera (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept, insufficient reason for deletionVera (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bestand is na 5 jaar geleden geupload te zijn niet gebruikt, en kan derhalve dus verwijderd worden. Bovendien zijn er betere duidelijkere foto's beschikbaar op internet. (Translation: File is not used since it has been uploaded 5 years ago, so it can be deleted. Besides, better and clearer pictures are available on the internet) Tubefreak (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commons isn't just the database of files for Wikipedia. It is a database of files that have a free license. As was noted in the license agreement, this license can't be retracted. That the file isn't used on Wikipedia currently, isn't a reason to delete it. --Vera (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept, insufficient reason for deletionVera (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the image was originally published anonymously. Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Please do at least a little research before creating these deletion requests and creating unnecessary work for other people. It it xplained in the already linked source (this is for all the photos from this source):
"vMuzeju novejse zgodovine Siovenije hranimo obsezno zbirko fotografij 0 Ljubljani.lzvira iz prve polovice 20. stoletja in spada v fotografski fond easopisa Siovenec. Gradivo je Muzej pridobil v petdesetih letih prejsnjega stole~a. Casopis Siovenec je izhajal med letoma 1873 in 1945, od konca leta 1924 do poletja leta 1932 je kot njegova tedenska priloga izhajal tudi Ilustrirani Siovenec in mnogo original nih fotografij iz nasega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam. Razstava in katalog sta zasnovana tako, da je na eni strani stara erno-bela fotografija iz muzejskega arhiva, na drugi strani pa danasnja barvna fotografija, ki je posneta z istega mesta in s eim bolj podobnega zornega kota kot stara fotografija. o stari podobi Ljubljane, arhitekturi, njenem spreminjanju v prejsnjih desetletjih je bilo objavljenih vee knjig. Zelimo dodati se muzejski prispevek, ki temelji na originalnih kvalitetnih fotografijah ulic, trgov, zgradb, veeinoma posnetih v letih med svetovnima vojnama, brez zelje, da bi se prikazalo vse, kar je bilo v Ljubljani zanimivega. Tako morda nismo zajeli kaksnega zanimivega in lepega predela Ljubljane, pomembne stavbe ali pogleda na del Ljubljane, ki ga danes ni vee. Objavili smo najboljse in najzanimivejse fotografije iz muzejskega arhiva, ki vecinoma se niso bile objavljene v drugih·publikacijah. Fotografije so opremljene Ie z osnovnimi podatki. Za poglobljen studij in proueevanje je na voljo vee knjig, ki govorijo o nastanku in razvoju stavb, ulic in mestnih predelov. Podpisi pri starih fotografijah so originalni napisi na fotografijah iz arhiva ali kombinacija originalnega napisa in podpisa pod fotografijo, objavljenega v Ilustriranem Siovencu. Namen razstave, kataloga in koledarja je ponovno obuditi stare poglede na Ljubljano, starejsim Ljubljaneanom mogoee v nostalgieen spomin, mlajsim v primerjavo, kaksna je bila Ljubljana nekoe. Na drugi strani pa vse novo po doloeenem casu postane staro in tudi fotografije, narejene v letu 2006, bode nekoe postale dokument easa. Fotografije je urednistvo Siovenca pridobivalo na razliene naeine. Iz fonda ne razberemo, da so imeli svoje profesionalne fotografe, na originalnih fotografijah fotografi veeinoma niso navedeni, razen celjskega fotografa Josipa Pelikana, ki se veekrat pojavlja in na katerega fotografijah pise "po objavi vrniti avtorju«. Ker se urednistvo tega mnogokrat ni drzalo, sedaj bogatijo muzejski foto arhiv. Tudi fotografije, ki so bile objavljene v Ilustriranem Siovencu, so v veeini primerov nepodpisane oziroma fotografi niso navedeni. Izjema so fotografija struge stare Ljubljanice fotografa Avgusta Bertholda, nekaj fotografij Ijubljanskega velesejma fotografa Antona Ursiea, nekaj fotografij Velieana Bestra, ki so bile izdelane v ateljeju Helios, fotografije fotografa Davorina Rovska in mnogokrat reproducirani posnetek dogajanja na Kongresnem trgu 29. oktobra 1918 fotografa Frana Grabjeca. Ta fotografija je bila izdana v obliki razglednice , na kateri pise, da je ponatis prepovedan. V urednistvu so ta del poernili in fotografijo objavili v lIustriranem Siovencu. Na fotografa niso pozabili. Na mnogih kasnejsih objavah pa so napis, ki prepoveduje reproduciranje enostavno odrezali in mnogokrat niso navedli niti fotografa."--Sporti (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly from this text makes you think this image is free? According to it, some images from this collection were published anonymously, others were not. One cannot be certain that this one was published anonymously. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its basically says that photos without noted author were published anonymously in Ilustrirani Slovenec between 1924 and 1932. --Sporti (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It actually says that most of images were published anonymously, and some were not. It also says that some photos were made by Davorin Rovšek, and only one is marked as such. How can we be certain this one was not made by him? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it says most photos were published anonymously and states all the exeptions so what is unclear? --Sporti (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is unclear is the discrepancy between the photographers mentioned in the introduction (Berthold, Uršič, Rovšek, Bešter) and the captions that e.g. don't mention Berthold at all, but this would not be a problem if no photos were made by Rovšek who died in 1949. In the introduction, it is stated that some images were made by him, but only one is marked as such in the caption. Why do they mention these photographers in the introduction, but not in captions? This makes it unclear whether all images without the mention of the photographer were originally published anonymously or not. I'd suggest that this image is deleted per lack of clarity about the author and undeleted in 2020. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It also says that they have kept all the original notes under the photographs, so if it was published with an author's name, they would have kept it. --Sporti (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. However, there is another problem with this image. Unless proven otherwise, the image was evidently published for the first time in 2006, because those from the newspaper's collection that went published before have this written in the caption. It is also written that the authors were known (despite in the case of images from the newspaper names were not published in the newspaper). The copyright therefore lasts for the lifetime of the creator and 70 years afterwards. In the case that the name would not be known, one would have to consider Article 61 of the Slovene copyright act,[5] and the image would be actually copyright-free only in 2077, 70 years after its lawful publication. In any case, the image is not free. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say all images are from Ilustrirani Slovenec, this one is obviously from regular Slovenec newspaper. --Sporti (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. The image was evidently published for the first time in 2006 (in the timeframe of 70 years) and if I understand correctly the sentence "na originalnih fotografijah fotografi večinoma niso navedeni" [On original photographs the photographers are mainly not cited], its author is not known, which means that it will become public domain only in 2077 (70+1 years after its first lawful disclosure; Article 61). Unless one can prove that it was not only part of the newspaper's collection but actually went published in the newspaper. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that any of the photographs were never published. They were published either in Ilustrirani Slovenec or regular Slovenec for the first time. --Sporti (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It says: "We have included the best and most interesting photographs from the Museum's archives which, for the most part, have not been published yet." (pg. 5) --Eleassar (t/p) 13:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- ...published in other publications (objavljeni v drugih publikacijah). --Sporti (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, other than this book (Lost Sights). --Eleassar (t/p) 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, other than the newspapers Ilustrirani Slovenec regular Slovenec. Or the paragraph doesn't make sense ("Casopis Siovenec je izhajal med letoma 1873 in 1945, od konca leta 1924 do poletja leta 1932 je kot njegova tedenska priloga izhajal tudi Ilustrirani Siovenec in mnogo original nih fotografij iz nasega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam").--Sporti (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a complete sense to me. The newspaper (the organisation) kept a large collection of images, which were then handled to the museum. Many of these were published in the first half of the 20th century, but Lost Sights is a collection of images, which were for the most part not published until 2006. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- "mnogo originalnih fotografij iz našega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam" and "ki večinoma se niso bile objavljene v drugih·publikacijah" contradicts each other following your interpretacion.--Sporti (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you see the contradiction? The museum keeps a large number of images. The images from Lost Sights were mainly not published in other publication than this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why else would it say "v drugih publikacijah" then, it would just say "ki večinoma še niso bile objavljene". --Sporti (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this "other publications" refers to anything else than Lost Sights, and the English translation makes it completely clear. As long as one does not provide a newspaper where it was published in the 1930s, the image should be considered non-free. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was published anonymously for the first time in 2006, according to the source stating: "We have included the best and most interesting photographs from the Museum's archives which, for the most part, have not been published yet." (pg. 5) This is less than 70+1 years after its creation. It is evident that it does not derive from 1938, because a new four-story building was constructed at the site of Tiskarna Slovenije in 1937-38 and it's simply not there. The same information "before 1938" is written on the cited dLib page. What I see is a two-story building that was taken down in the 1930s. Per the Slovene copyright and related rights act, it will be free after 70+1 years from the initial event, which is its first publication in 2006. Eleassar (t/p) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination If the depicted building is the old building, which was demolished in the early 1930s, it is clear that the photo must have been created more than 70 years ago before its original publication in 2006. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by San Ernesto (talk · contribs)
unused personal pictures see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_San_Ernesto and out of scope picture
Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from http://fortunalasuperf.com/ :Copyright © 2012 - Fortuna La Super F Todos los derechos reservados
Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - none of these add anything to what we already have
- File:X9 1.jpg
- File:X8 1.jpg
- File:X7 1.jpg
- File:Full erection 567.jpg
- File:X5 1.jpg
- File:Flaccid Penis 567.jpg
- File:Erection from side.jpg
- File:Slightly curved flaccid penis.jpg
INeverCry 03:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Fully agree with nom - nothing we do not have already --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I must agree, pretty low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality images. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality and in some cases blurred pix of a very common object which Commons already has a wealth of superior images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with everyone else --Simonxag (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
2 files with similar Picasa-exif and photo characteristics. File:Ebro casa ciencias.JPG already circulating since 10.2011 (lower res). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF (comparing to the other - valid - uploads of user).
Gunnex (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. My fault/misinterpretation. Gunnex (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn by nominator. Geagea (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not own images. The first one is a scan of an old photograph, the other two are made by Annibal Barka and can be found at Panoramio: [6] and [7]. Ditafel's uploads usually miss any exif data, so there might be more copyvio.
- File:Avenida 28 de Julio antiguo huacho.JPG
- File:Banderas en la plaza de armas de Huacho.jpg
- File:Ovalo de Huacho.jpg
NNW (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Department stores in Slovenia
[edit]Architecture created after 1945. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia)
- File:Blagovnica Murska Sobota.jpg
- File:Hipermarket TUŠ Koper.jpg
- File:Mercator Vrhnika.jpg
- File:NAMA Skofja loka.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Murska Sobota
[edit]No evidence that these architectural works would be public domain (i.e. the author died before 1945). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:BC Murska Sobota.jpg
- File:Fazanerija Stadium.jpg
- File:Kleklova knigarna, Sobota.JPG
- File:MSobota-knjiznica1.jpg
- File:MSobota-postaja1.jpg
- File:Murska Sobota-train station-front.jpg
- File:Murska Sobota-train station.jpg
- File:SLO-Muraszombat05.JPG
- File:Vojašnica Murska Sobota.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Murska Sobota
[edit]Out of the scope or not free per COM:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia.
- File:2009 Murska Sobota (17) (5355059284).jpg
- File:2009 Murska Sobota (27) (5355063754).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (1) (5354439239).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (16) (5355058820).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (18) (5355059620).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (22) (5355060946).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (4) (5354440401).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621778559).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621781107).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621782469).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621785653).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621790261).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621798843).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621800507).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621806521).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621809669).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621810857).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621811461).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621812757).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621817617).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621819055).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621825363).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621827697).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621841489).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621847985).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621883983).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621886675).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621892625).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621913099).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621914615).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621916783).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621930225).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621931277).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621932591).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621933777).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621938995).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621950013).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621951521).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621952841).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621954079).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621958019).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8621964039).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622884110).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622888492).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622891398).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622893076).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622898394).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622899620).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622901482).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622950436).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622953108).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622957814).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622959478).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622966680).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622967726).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622969994).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622989036).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622992284).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622993162).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622994804).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8622997396).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623008552).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623009872).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623028842).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623032204).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623041760).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623059140).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623060222).jpg
- File:Murska Sobota (8623062894).jpg
_(5355059284).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5355063754).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5354439239).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5355058820).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5355059620).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5355060946).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5354440401).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 08:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete File:2009 Murska Sobota (17) (5355059284).jpg and File:2009 Murska Sobota (27) (5355063754).jpg, unused personal pics. -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also Delete most of the others, because there is no Freedom of Panorama in Slovenia. But not all of these photos contain copyrightable elements. I have not looked at them all, but I don't believe these two contain anything subject to copyright: File:Murska Sobota (8623008552).jpg File:Murska Sobota (8623028842).jpg Closing admin should look at all photos carefully. -Pete F (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cheonggyecheon
[edit]Violation of COM:FOP#Korea (South). The sculptor, Claes Oldenburg, is still alive.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Protected by copyright under FOP standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free per nom, commercial use not allowed under COM:FOP#Korea (South). --Avenue (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lojze Dolinar
[edit]sl:Lojze Dolinar died in 1970, which is less than 70 years ago. This makes his works and their reproductions (photos etc.) non-free for commercial use (see COM:FOP#Slovenia), therefore ineligible for Commons.
- File:Burger IlirskeProvinceTrgFrRevoluSpomenik02.jpg
- File:Davorin Jenko 1.JPG
- File:Dolinar portret Tita.jpg
- File:Dolinar spomenik revolucije delavska stavka 1959-61.jpg
- File:Dolinar spomenik revolucije2.jpg
- File:Dolinar Spomenik revoluciji woman.jpg
- File:Doprsni kip Davorina Jenka na Žalah.jpg
- File:L.Dolinar.Boj.Iz prvega upora 1954 bron.jpg
- File:Lojze Dolinar 1915-25.jpg
- File:Lojze Dolinar pri izdelavi kipa po modelu Rihardu Jakopiču 1915-25.jpg
- File:Spomenik 1. svetovne vojne (Kranjski Janez) - Polje - Lojze Dolinar 1.jpg
- File:Spomenik 1. svetovne vojne (Kranjski Janez) - Polje - Lojze Dolinar 2.jpg
_-_Polje_-_Lojze_Dolinar_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Polje_-_Lojze_Dolinar_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Later found and deleted:
- File:Osnutek za načrtovani spomenik kralja Petra I. Karađorđevića 1931.jpg
- File:Kip-IpavecBenjamin.JPG
- File:Presernov gaj 4.jpg
--Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Lojze Dolinar
Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it [the image] was originally published anonymously." These photos don't have them and they're not old enough to be able to say that the author almost surely died before 1945.
- File:Lojze Dolinar 1930s.jpg
- File:Posmrtna maska Ivana Cankarja.jpg
- File:Razstavni odbor umetniške razstave.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the author is unknown per dlib, so its date + 70 years => PD. --Sporti (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Per [8]: "If it is in the process of clearing the copyright status found out that a certain work is orphan, it is not allowed to publish it in dLib." [V kolikor se v postopku razčiščevanja pravic izkaže, da je določeno delo osirotelo, ga na portalu dLib ni dovoljeno objaviti.] I have no information to doubt this. Perhaps their author was anonymous or only has not been credited. In any case, it seems that the files are free. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn Yann (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Pictures of La Géode
[edit]Pictures of a building designed by Adrien Fainsilber (still alive); France has no freedom of panorama. Postcard publishers have already been condemned for representing it (Cour d'appel de Paris, 23 October 1990).
- File:La-Vilette-film52jpg.jpg
- File:La-Vilette-film55jpg.jpg
- File:Paris parc de la villette01.jpg
- File:Le Vrai Paris.jpg
- File:La Géode depuis le Canal de l'Ourcq.JPG
- File:Cite des sciences de la Villette - Panorama3.jpg
- File:Cite-des-sciences-de-la-Villette.jpg
- File:Cite des sciences de la Villette - Panorama2.jpg
--Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per above. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The author of the sculpture of France Prešeren and the reliefs at it (sl:Ivan Zajec) died in 1952, which is less than 70 years ago. This makes these images non-free for commercial use (see COM:FOP#Slovenia), which means they're ineligible for Commons.
- File:France Prešeren Denkmal.JPG
- File:France Prešeren statue.jpg
- File:France Prešeren.JPG
- File:France Prešern statue in 1928.jpg
- File:FranciskacChurch-Ljubljana.JPG
- File:Ljubljana Franciscan church.jpg
- File:Odkritje Prešernovega spomenika v Ljubljani leta 1905 (2).jpg
- File:Odkritje Prešernovega spomenika v Ljubljani leta 1905 (3).jpg
- File:Odkritje Prešernovega spomenika v Ljubljani leta 1905.jpg
- File:Preseren z muzo.jpg
- File:PresernovTrg-Ljubljana.JPG
- File:Prešeren.JPG
- File:Prešeren statue at night.jpg
- File:Prešernov spomenik 1928.jpg
- File:Prešernov spomenik med 1900 in 1910.jpg
- File:Ribič, Prešeren Statue, Ljubljana.jpg - undelete in 2023
- File:SLO-Ljubljana47.JPG
- File:Slovo.jpg - undelete in 2023
- File:Stetue of France Preseren.JPG
- File:VidGajsek - novoletni Presernov trg VIII.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it [the image] was originally published anonymously." They're missing.
- File:1912 Ljubljana postcard - the Stritar Street.jpg
- File:Gradnja Tromostovja 1931-32.jpg
- File:Slavnost pred odkritjem Prešernovega spomenika na Marijinem trgu leta 1905.jpg - with this image, I doubt that the photographer was indeed Ivan Kotar, because per this article (pg. 78), he died in 1903, and the celebration took place in September 1905. It would not be the first time that I've spotted a mistake in dLib.
Eleassar (t/p) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, same as here --Sporti (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly from this text makes you think these three images are free? For the first one, Flickr is no source; for the second one, some images from this collection were published anonymously, others were not. One cannot be certain that this one was published anonymously; and for the last one, the author is evidently incorrect (or what?). --Eleassar (t/p) 11:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I I withdraw my nomination the deletion proposal for the second image. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I
- Comment Regarding the first image (1910s postcard); no author credit on the cards was very common (though there were some exceptions). Probably correct to call it anon work, though what was on the back of the card would have to be seen to be certain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Later found and deleted:
- File:Spomenik Francu Prešernu 1907..jpg
- File:Franciscan church of the Annunciation (8555890080).jpg
- File:Ljubljana 7.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- File:France Preseren.jpg
- File:France Prešeren - spomenik.jpg
- File:SPOMENIK FRANCETU PREŠERNU V LJ.jpg
--TadejM (t/p) 00:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:PREŠERNOV SPOMENIK.jpg
- File:SPOMENIK FRANCETU PREŠERNU.jpg
- File:PREŠERNOV SPOMENIK V LJUBLJANI.jpg
--TadejM (t/p) 13:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ℯxplicit 04:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Buildings and sculptures are copyrighted. --Storkk (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JimKrochka (talk · contribs)
[edit]Album cover. I think artist/label identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Cover of the "Inside The Brain" album.jpg
- File:Inside the Brain.jpg
- File:"Inside The Brain" Cover Photo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Libertalia Nancy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of web sites with questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:S.P.jpg
- File:A.Benson.jpg
- File:A.B.jpg
- File:S.M.jpg
- File:L.H.jpg
- File:T.B.jpg
- File:Troian Bellisario.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pachalovaslan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:10 "A" Class Pachalov Aslan.jpg
- File:ARON HD CHANNEL STUDIO.jpg
- File:Istanbul Aslan Pachalov.jpg
- File:Pachalov Aslan travel in Turkey.jpg
- File:Zhezdi Aslan.jpg
- File:Zhezkazgan Aslan.jpg
- File:Turkey Aslan.jpg
- File:PachalovAslan.jpg
- File:ARON HD CHANNEL©.jpg
- File:AslanPachalov.JPG
- File:ARON HD CHANNEL ASLAN PACHALOV.jpg
- File:ARON HD CHANNEL.jpg
- File:Pachalov Aslan.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Franc Pribošek
[edit]Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing.
Eleassar (t/p) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Dlib isn't a reliable source (as here)? --Sporti (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'll renominate those images. I still regard dLib as a mainly a reliable source as much as it concerns the author being unknown (although no source should be trusted completely and all should be cross-checked), but it doesn't specify whether the work was originally published anonymously. They evidently publish orphan works, but the Commons has stricter rules. Per COM:Anonymous works, it should be proven that a work is copyright-free, not only that the creator is currently unknown. As stated in the article, "orphan works are not available for use by filmmakers, archivists, writers, musicians, and broadcasters. Because the copyright owner can not be identified and located, historical and cultural records such as period film footage, photographs, and sound recordings cannot be incorporated in contemporary works... Public libraries, educational institutions and museums, who digitise old manuscripts, books, sound recordings and film, may choose to not digitise orphan works, or make orphan works available to the public, for fear that a re-appearing copyright owner may sue them for damages." They therefore don't meet the scope of Commons, i.e. the requirement that all files should be available for any usage. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- By your interpretacions probably most of these should be deleted (just in case). --Sporti (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to say, because they originate from many countries, use all sorts of licenses, and there are different reasons why they are PD. I'll do a review. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- By your interpretacions probably most of these should be deleted (just in case). --Sporti (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The author is unknown so its 70 years + date of creation. --Sporti (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- As stated above: Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Per [9]: "If it is in the process of clearing the copyright status found out that a certain work is orphan, it is not allowed to publish it in dLib." [V kolikor se v postopku razčiščevanja pravic izkaže, da je določeno delo osirotelo, ga na portalu dLib ni dovoljeno objaviti.] I have no information to doubt this. This could mean that these works were previously published anonymously or that dLib writes names of only certain authors. In any case, it seems that the files are free. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jan Binkhorst (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern book cover. I think author/publisher identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Kjærsti Elida Guseck, Por 118.jpg
- File:Kjaersti Elida Guseck, Por 225.jpg
- File:Ms Kjærsti Elida Guseck.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted, clearly out of scope. Trijnsteltalk 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
5 uploads of professional portraits, 3x copyvio from official sites: These are the remaining ones: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, obviously also grabbed from official sites. File:Gabino-Cue-Monteagudo.png --> mysterious white border, cropped, original might be (example) this one. File:GracoMediosDigitales.jpg obviously grabbed from http://gracoramirez.mx/biografia/ (identical size & exif).
Gunnex (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Clean up of {{PD-MacaoGov}}
[edit]
- File:A forma de plano de subsídio para aquisição de material escolar a estudantes do ensino superio 7853.JPG
- File:AACM.png
- File:BACK OF MACAU ID CARD.jpg
- File:Boletim de entrada e saida da RAEHK para titulares de BIRP da RAEM.jpg
- File:CadastroDasViasPublicasEOutrosLugaresDaCidadeDeMacau1993cover.jpg
- File:Cert_da_Medalha_de_Mérito_Turistico.jpg
- File:Cheque do plano de comparticipação pecuniária no desenvolvimento económico do ano 2008.jpg
- File:CPSP.png
- File:Festival de Art de Macau.png
- File:FRONT_OF_MACAU_ID_CARD.jpg
- File:Macau Article 23 consult.jpg
- File:Macau_id_card_back.jpg
- File:Macau_id_card.jpg
- File:Macau_Sar_Passport_Old_and_New_Style.jpg
- File:Observation_and_Identification_Pages_of_the_Macau_ePassport.jpg
- File:StreetNameSign_ArruamentosDaRegiaoAdministrativaEspecialDeMacau2008.svg
- File:Visa_pages_(pp._24_and_25)_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg
- File:Visa_pages_(pp._26_and_27)_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg
- File:Visa_pages_(pp._28_and_29)_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg
_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg){kind=link}
_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg){kind=link}
_of_a_Macau_ePassport.jpg){kind=link}
{{PD-MacaoGov}} is staged for deprecated usage after discussion in Village Pump, new template is written: {{PD-MacaoGov-text}}. However, this license covers only text, those are not in text should be removed, and the remaining ones should have another request to move to {{PD-simple}} by bots Chanueting (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The boundry of what is official text and what isn't official text hasn't been sufficiently discussed. Is it official text if it's in the form of a form? I would think so, but it's listed here. Please go back and give us a clear boundry to work with, and then do a targeted relisting, instead of just throwing everything at DR. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexander Hoffmann (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 21:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Naam van dit bestand en de gegevens, verstrekt door de " Beeldbank Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed", kloppen niet! Zie bij Overleg van dit bestand. Typezero (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone that speaks Dutch can please translate? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- As per google translation: Name of the file and the data provided by the "Beeldbank National Cultural Heritage", are wrong! Refer to talk this file. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- A wrong description wouldn't be reason enough for deletion. Just edit the page to adjust the description or use {{Rename}}. An other issue with this picture is that there isn't a hot link to the Beeldbank. I'm not sure the license given to this picture is correct. It's close to being a 2D work of art, so {{PD-art}} might suffice, but not quite yet. Without more documentation on who made this photograph it could be considered a copyright violation--Vera (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- As per google translation: Name of the file and the data provided by the "Beeldbank National Cultural Heritage", are wrong! Refer to talk this file. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the PD claim about this image based upon? Per COM:Anonymous works, "reliable sources must be found that prove it was originally published anonymously." They're missing. Eleassar (t/p) 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also here. I would not want this image to be deleted without a good reason. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The distinction between works by named authors and anonymous works is irrelevant for computing the duration of the copyright in cases where the identity and the year of death of the author are not the criteria and thus make no difference. For example, a photograph created in 1944 and first published in Australia before 1989 is free in Australia and in the United States, and the identity of the author does not change that, because per the version of the Australian copyright law on the URAA date in 1996, the criterion was 50 years after the creation of the photograph and 1944 + 50 years post creation = 1994 = public domain in Australia; and 1994 < 1996 = public domain in the United States. Therefore, to determine if a photo is in the public domain in its source country and in the United Sates, the first question is not if it is anonymous or not, but where and when it was first published. The uploader provided a source showing that this photograph was published in Australia, at least at some point in time. But where and when was its first publication? A look at the collection of Maribor photos on the Australian War Memorial website, the immediate source of this copy, shows that in general we can classify those photos in one of two groups. One group comprises studio photos taken by the Jana studio. Those were sent by the German to the families of prisoners, in their home countries, to show that the prisoners were well treated. The other group comprises photos taken by prisoners inside the camp with cameras borrowed from German guards. The nature of the photo discussed in this deletion request likely places it in the second group. The whereabouts of the non-Jana photos between their taking and their publication is not detailed. Anyway, because of the people who are pictured on those photos, the most obvious immediate target audience for those photos are people in their home countries, depending on each case. For this reason, it seems more reasonable to assume that this photo was first published in Australia than anywhere else. The other question is if it was published before 1989 or not. If it was first published in Australia before 1989, it is also in the public domain in the United States. If it was not published before 1989, it is under copyright in the United States. It seems reasonable to assume that this photo was published before 1989, in the sense the word "published" has been interpreted in the U.S., for example by copies being given, without restriction on their reproduction, to the persons pictured or to their families, or given or sold to the museum, or printed in a newspaper or a book, etc. One may say that it depends on the treshold of certainty that we apply to accept the assumptions that it was first published in Australia and that it was published before 1989. I don't think that we need 100% certainty, if the assumptions are much more reasonable than any other and in the absence of any clue that might point in another direction. For those reasons, I'm leaning toward keeping this photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, I think it is highly likely that this photo was first "published" in Australia before 1989, and therefore is PD-US. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 07:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Dean Komel.jpg. Unless a valid ticket is provided, this image should be deleted. Eleassar (t/p) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No license was specified in the OTRS ticket and no mention was made of use outside Wikimedia projects. The uploader has had six weeks to obtain a more specific declaration and forward it. It's time t delete the file and restore it of or when we receive a valid statement of permission. Also, permanent link to the noticeboard thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scanned portrait Cambalachero (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- EXIF says en:Canon PowerShot A480, a digital camera; so it might be a photo of a poster in the museum, or maybe it's just a poor quality image. In any case, we have to know the artist's details - the painting itself is not necessarily PD (if it is, {{PD-Art}} should apply). Rd232 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename, sorry Neitram (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- clarifying: this was apparently meant as a new (higher-res) version of File:Johan Christian Clausen Dahl Blick auf Dresden bei Vollmondschein.jpg. Rd232 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maarten1995 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obviously copyrighted work, should not be on commons
- File:TheWalkingDeadSeizoen3.jpg
- File:TheWalkingDeadSeizoen2.jpg
- File:TheWalkingDeadSeizoen1.jpg
- File:Wrongturnfranshise.png PD-textlogo
- File:Thefinderlogo.png
- File:LogoBreakoutKings.jpg PD-textlogo
- File:PrisonBreakProofofInnocence.jpg
Wiki13 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted The Walking Dead and Prison Break media. The logo of Breakout Kings and Wrong Turn are probably PD-textlogo. I'm not sure about The Finder logo. Mathonius (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)