This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment @ANGELUS, why do you think it's out of scope? I mean IMO, It's so far the best picture of a vagina costume that we have.--FAEP (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete I think it is unlikely you will get permission, but that's what needs to be done to keep it on Commons. Even if accomplished, it is unlikely to happen in short order, so I support deletion until such time as permission might be arranged.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete I think it is unlikely you will get permission, but that's what needs to be done to keep it on Commons. Even if accomplished, it is unlikely to happen in short order, so I support deletion until such time as permission might be arranged.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file is very likely to be a copyright violation. The same image cand be found at [1] and, since the user who originally uploaded it has been blocked on it.wiki, I think it's him that copied the image and not the converse. Decan (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the blocked user is JPNandUSA, not Threecharlie (!). JPNandUSA was blocked as sockpuppet of a user blocked for edit warring. The file has been uploaded on February 2012 and the web page seems to be date 2012 as well. --Nemo11:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, in my work of moving (apparent) free license images sometimes doubts I get after having moved to Commons. I do not think that now we can have doubts about my intellectual honesty, or rather the method of my softer position interpretation of specific licenses, discussing with those who have a more rigid reading. (sorry for my shocking colloquial English) ;-D--Threecharlie (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file is very likely to be a copyright violation. The same image cand be found at [2] and, since the user who originally uploaded it has been blocked on it.wiki, I think it's him that copied the image and not the converse. Decan (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry I am doing a mess with another image! The user in this case is called CoNVeRSeXD, but he looks to be a sockpuppet of the same user as JPNandUSA who uploaded the other image, taking it from the same website! (And it's me that moved the image from it.wiki to Commons, I didn't notice it. Sorry) --Decan (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader added a remark "Written permission must be granted from Universal Publishers, Inc. to use or reproduce", which is not compatible with CC. Not clear whether an unidentified editor can upload and release this under CC. Presence of pictograms make it unlikely that this would qualify as just text that does not fall under iamge copyright. Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely own work. According to uk.wikipedia, the file is a portrait photo taken from the Ukrainian Liberal Party's website. I can't locate the image on the site currently (Galenko's portrait seems to be missing), but the uk.wp upload predates the Commons version by five days so I don't think the self-license can be considered plausible. Jafeluv (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete We have plenty of fine images of the Taj Mahal, so losing this one won't be a problem. Probably not suitable anyway. Note that a new file has been uploaded, so the deletion would be of the earlier version, 28 September.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Flickr washing: a scanned road map which is a bit cropped. If it was an own work then no names would have been cutted, the highlighted area would fit completely to the dotted line in the map and the legend would be much more professional. NNW (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep 1) The basic allegation -- that Palestinian "fighters" are not always above using civilians as "shields" -- has been substantiated in several specific incidents. 2) It doesn't display a fraction of the vile racist hatred and bigotry of the Latuff cartoons. AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
On ne sait pas si l'auteur de la photo du 11 février 2003 a mis cette image sous licence libre. What is the licence of the original picture 2003-02-11? --MGuf (d) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete We are so often concerned with art works that we forget that words have a copyright -- even short selections such as this. It does not matter that it is a simple description, the mere choice of words is creative. --Bob247 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
cette sculture est représentative de la ville de la Ciotat! je souhaite qu'elle paraisse dans la catégorie:La Ciotat et non pas dans monuments des bouches du rhône
la plétore de paysages de la ville n'apportent pas cette identité,qui est reconnue ici; merci
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
one image (center left) has been deleted as derivative, if no one is able to blank or replace it the whole collage has to be deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images look ok, but the building in the bottom left image, the Jean-Marie Tjibaou Centre, may pass the threshold of originality and therefore be non-free. However, before deciding to change the image again, wait for the decision here? Also, File:Ministere-des-Finances-de-B-2.jpg has been nominated for deletion per the argument used for the previous image. --Bob247 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I worry that no image of the Ministry of Finance will meet de minimis and be suitable for inclusion in a montage. Also the Tjibaou Centre is in New Caledonia, which is becoming independent (so it is not clear if French lack of FOP law applies there). Ruhrfisch (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be copied to Wikipedia. If it displays a monument built under François Mitterrand's presidency, it is obviously not in the PD. Yann (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hi, I just wanted to say that this is Charlotte Leslie's Constituency Office and we have uploaded the image with her permission, as she was standing over my shoulder as I uploaded it hahaha. We were wondering what we (Oh alliteration) need to do now with regard to the image? Charlotte Leslie 1978 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is nothing in particular that this image is present to illustrate. We have images of naked male and female bodies, and they are ten a penny. Surely we need to consider why we have an image in the first place? And we then surely need to consider which of the images illustrate whatever is being illustrated best? Otherwise Commons becomes equivalent to Flickr? I have no interest i wthetehr this is a naked or clothed person, but I am interested in why it is present and what its purpose is. Timtrent (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As a book cover from 1938, I don't believe it has yet fallen into fair use. It may have been uploaded by the editor, but I don't think he is the author. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Русский: Фактически никак не относится к тематике "pole dance", где представлен, а также является сомнительным по содержанию и целям размещения. 89.105.239.2119:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English: Actually does not apply to the subject of "pole dance", which is presented, and is doubtful for the content and objectives of the placement.
Delete Out of scope, (no content usable for an educational purpose), an unused personal photo where the subject happens to be nude. Also the subject is identifiable and it is not at all clear that this isn't a private situation. --Simonxag (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,I don't know,is not clear,but the image is yours,him or her,and that person is agree the image is on wikipedia , my vote is keep,maybe is vulgar or not,comons does not say that, put:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warning. other posibility is that person doesn't know about it,my vote is delete,--EEIM (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Yosri as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is doubtful the logo created by the up-loader. Derivative.INeverCry20:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an option to black out/blur the logo? DimiTalen 06:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photo is from New Caledonia. Before any deletion I think clarification is needed that there is no freedom of panorama in New Caledonia specifically [it has a different legal status due to the Nouméa Accord]Sun Ladder (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photo is from New Caledonia. Before any deletion decision is made, clarification is needed that there is no freedom of panorama in New Caledonia specifically (it has a different legal status due to the Nouméa Accord). Ruhrfisch (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photo is from New Caledonia. Before any deletion I think clarification is needed that there is no freedom of panorama in New Caledonia specifically [it has a different legal status due to the Nouméa Accord]Sun Ladder (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment - Doesn't this fall under {{PD-Italy}}? "images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92)."
Which part of PD-Italy do you see relevant in this case? A fact of social life? Per Article 87, "This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87)." I consider a building a material object. Also mind that per COM:FOP#Italy, Italy has no Commons-suitable freedom of panorama. Because the National Hall in Trieste was created by Max Fabiani, who died in 1962, the image does not belong to Commons in any case. It's only the question whether it can be undeleted in 2033 or not. --Eleassar(t/p)11:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The simple photography must not have artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality." --Sporti (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Two issues here -- the copyright in the image and whether the image infringes the copyright of the architect. As to the first, I think there is a problem, but it is moot, because the image clearly infringes the architect's copyright, which runs until 2033. An Admin then can decide whether the image falls under the 20 year rule. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is basically a mass deletion request.
All files contained in Category:User:esby/Cosplay_photo_without_model_release should be deleted.
Basically there is no model release associated with these photos, so they cannot be used commercially without the model agreement.
This is also specified on my Flickr profile since a lonnnnng time.
They were all imported from my Flickr account with the flickr uploader tool. Esby (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Esby reading of the law is not correct. While it is true that they cannot be used for commercial endorsements, that is not a copyright restriction. They can be used in a variety of other commercial uses, including, for example, bookson cosplay. If Esby's reading were correct, we could not keep any image of a person. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete I think my rather limited interpretation of the law above was probably incorrect. It seems that except for public figures and crowds, any image of a person in France requires permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. That there is no consent of the models does not really matters. This is a non-copyright restriction with which the Commons is not concerned. It is the responsibility of those who want to reuse this pictures for a commercial purpose to obtain the necessary consent. Commons (as well as other Wikimedia projects) itself is not a commercial project and is not affected by this non-copyright restriction. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The French law is stricter than most -- with limited exceptions which do not apply here, any use, commercial or not, of the image of a person in France is unlawful -- simply taking the photograph is unlawful. Therefore our hosting the images is actionable. That is certainly of concern.
First, I can not find where that guideline says that the consent for hosting such photos on Commons is mandatory. It only implies that it is desirable. Second, the photos were obviously taken with consent of the models, and I assume that they were published (i.e. made public) with consent of the models (by the same same person - Esby - who nominated them for deletion). Is it necessary for the Commons to have a specific consent for hosting images that have been already lawfully published elsewhere? That guideline is quite unclear with respect of this question. I would not delete these images (after all they have been here for 5 years without any problem) unless there is a specific complaint. Ruslik (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cited official guideline says:
"An image is unacceptable to Commons if it is illegal, or arguably illegal, in any one or more of: (a) the country in which the photograph was taken; (b) the country from which the image was uploaded; (c) the USA (where Commons images are stored)."
That seems pretty clear to me. French law makes it illegal to take images of identifiable people without their consent. While it may appear obvious to you that the person in the subject image consented, I don't think it passes our "beyond a significant doubt" standard and we certainly have no written evidence of consent. COM:PRP #5 speaks directly to your last sentence:
"...the following are against Commons' aims:
"5. The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."
Just a note, it is not illegal to take photos of someone, you might ask for consent for taking the picture, which helps in getting the person attention but it is not enough for publication, consent for taking the photograph does not equal to consent for publishing (or using) the photograph somewhere. Such consent has to be written, specific (naming the usage for example) and restricted in time, which is not really compatible to Commons expected usage of the medias... As I said there is no written consent, there is tolerance that such photos will be published on my (personal) websites (tolerance as understanding that's usually how cosplay photographers proceeds in France), but I don't think Commons is to be considered as my 'website'... Most photographs were changed of licence when i discovered those rogue flickr imports, a few hundred were left, due to issues affecting the flickr organiser when 10k photos (or more) needs be selected... I fixed all that were left (manually) this last december... Esby (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Just a note, it is not illegal to take photos of someone..."
At the official guideline cited above, we are told:
"Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent"
If the law says you need consent to take a picture of someone, then taking a picture without consent breaks the law and is therefore illegal. If it is not illegal to take photos of someone without consent, then our summary of the French law is incorrect and should be changed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents, you are probably right here, in my opinion, the issue is that you cannot really forbid to take a photograph, the 'right to take a photograph' does not intervene much here, at least in a public place, since the issue really comes into play when the photograph is actually published, at least it's the theory. Our guideline are probably ok there. After some thinking, since we deal with published pictures it does not really matter for us at Commons, I believe the important point is that you cannot transform a 'there was consent for taking the photograph' (understand he/she was posing) into a 'there was consent for publication' since there is nothing written. Esby (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have strict laws where consent is mandatory to take photos of people. In such cases, copyright is not going to initiated if we fire the shutter without consent. Consent to publish and consent to use commercially are different. If we need consent to publish, such works are only suitable for private uses where no publishing is carried out. If consent is required for commercial use, but other uses are allowed; we can host such works with a {{Personality}} warning. Jee02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
13 actual uploads = 12x copyvios. This is the remaining one. Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, looks like a crop from unknown source.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Действительно, воспроизводить и использовать для создания производных работ. Это если вы возьмёте общее разрешение. Можете взять частное, в котором архитектор лицензирует конкретную фотографию. Однако обратите внимание на то, что станцию метро проектировал целый коллектив работников, которые выполняли эти работы не по авторскому, а по трудовому договору. Поэтому разрешение надо получать не у конкретного человека-архитектора, а у директора проектного института, которому был заказан проект станции. Архитекторы тут были авторами служебного произведения, поэтому им не принадлежат исключительные права. ВАЖНОЕ: я рассказываю это в понятиях законодательства РФ, поэтому вы, пожалуйста, сравните с законодательством Украины. Там может быть по-другому.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Тут где-то есть аналогичные разрешения? Потому что как раз в ближайшие дни планирую общаться с авторами-архитекторами, чтобы можно было показать "не на пальцах" --AMY (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
На карте улус Берке изображён в Северном Причерноморье, а между тем В. Л. Егоров пишет: «Седьмым улусом во время посещения Золотой Орды Карпини владел брат хана Бату Берке. Территория его находилась в северокавказских степях, и по ней проходил торговый караванный путь через дербентский проход на Средний Восток. Однако осенью Бату отобрал этот улус у Берке и „приказал ему, чтобы он передвинулся с того места за Этилию (Волгу. — В. Е.) к востоку, не желая, чтобы послы саррацинов проезжали через его владения, так как это казалось Бату убыточным“». (Историческая география Золотой Орды)
Мой запрос на источники карты висит в её обсуждении с 29 декабря 2008. Карта загружена участником Adaykz 16 ноября 2008. С тех пор она обновлялась 5 раз (менялись размеры изображения), но никаких источников приведено не было. Нужна ли нам такая карта? Bahatur (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources for the map since file was downloaded (16.11.2008). Meanwhile localization of the Ulus of Berke is quite speculative. According to V. L. Egorov, initially the Ulus of Berke was situated in the North Caucasus and then Batu replaced it to the East of the Volga. So the map is an original research. --Bahatur (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although this image looks as though it may be ineligible for copyright as it only consists of text in a simple typeface within a simple geometric shape, it is possibly non-free in its home country, the Channel Islands. Without some research into individual laws, it cannot be assumed that a text logo from a Common law country is necessarily allowed on Commons. Therefore, the image must be deleted under the precautionary principle. --Bob247 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the society (although they have not asked me to create the page), and the logo is a reproduction rather than the original (Fdsdh1 (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - This image is a photo of my girlfriend and I am the original photo taker of it. I don't know why anyone thinks it is this German websites photo! Please let me know what to do to sort this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff2580 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteall this user's uploads. One has already gone, looking very much like a video capture. This looks suspicious. But look at the amateurish File:Female masturbation.jpg and the beautiful professional File:Breasts & nipples.jpg:- I don't think they're the same photographer and from those aureolae I know they're not the same woman. Two helpful girlfriends Jeff? The latter photo was taken (according to the camera location) in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, while File:Condom on penis.JPG was taken in a remote bit of forest near the US/Canadian border. This last image is the only one with EXIF data. Perhaps Jeff2580 can explain this situation? --Simonxag (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I saw the earlier uploads of this user and there didn't seem to to be any reason to question their source (they were deleted as "Superfluous sexually explicit material"). The Google link doesn't work for me. Can someone post a direct link to the site, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were correct. I uploaded it first and it was deleted. During that time someone must have copied it and copyrighted it as their own (I assume). As for the different geographic locations. I tried to change some of the locations because it exposed where I live. If you look they are pretty much taken all from the same device. So that't not fair that my photos were taken from me and claimed as someone elses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff2580 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete images because some people find them offensive and photographs of genitals (and other body parts) are very much appropriate for an educational resource site. I doubt the copyright of these images, if you have any more relevant evidence please provide it. --Simonxag (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google search clearly stats that the picture were first uploaded to commons on 10. Sept. 2012, the ” poppyspicturesmatureglamour” site uploaded it on 13. Okt. 2012, so it would seem that Jeff2580 actually is right, or at least it seems possible --Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are Common's rules regarding users who knowingly upload copyright violations? I mean, assuming that the other pictures of the user are in fact his own (though I'm not sure we can really make sure that they are), surely there has to be something done to make sure that this user doesn't upload copyright violations again? It seems odd to me that someone who uploaded copyright violations in the past continues to be allowed to upload pictures. --Conti|✉11:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't 3 copyvios a whole lot? If someone would have written 3 copyvio articles on en.wp, he'd most likely be blocked until he promised not to do it again, which seems very reasonable. --Conti|✉12:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons works differently from en.wp. User has been blocked once already, we tend to allow them rope to hang themselves, and if copyvios were uploaded pre-block, it doesn't make sense to block them again. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure how that makes any sense. We should, at the very least, require the user to show some proof that all these pictures are his, and prevent him from uploading more until he shows such proof. --Conti|✉13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several categories indicates within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment @ANGELUS, why do you think it's out of scope? I mean IMO, It's so far the best picture of a vagina costume that we have.--FAEP (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdrawn my deletion request --Angelus(talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete I think it is unlikely you will get permission, but that's what needs to be done to keep it on Commons. Even if accomplished, it is unlikely to happen in short order, so I support deletion until such time as permission might be arranged.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){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§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
