Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
._No_watermarks.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![32 File:The "Fun." Band.png](#File:The_"Fun."_Band.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2012.jpg){kind=link}
This image was originally uploaded from http://flickr.com/photos/stuttermonkey/17315580/ and was originally licensed CC-BY, which was checked by the FlickreviewR bot on 15 December 2006. So this is correctly licensed with respect to the photographer's rights.
Subsequent to that, the graffiti artist, Steven Lopez, objected to his work being published under a free license and the Flickr account holder changed the license to ARR. Since the work appears to pass TOO, I think we must delete it.
There is a crop of this image which is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hip Hop Graffiti Resized.jpg. I think we may be able to keep that because it is all text. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep because the color on the wall is {{PD-ineligible}}--Ralf Roleček 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in USA for 2D work. Yann (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, "artice" del. on DE Nolispanmo 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
._No_watermarks.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._No_watermarks.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicidad y no se utiliza LosMadriles (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
._No_watermarks.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
._No_watermarks.JPG){kind=link}
The map in this image is not one of those covered by our permission from Ron Blakey. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – The original image (35moll.jpg from http://cpgeosystems.com/mollglobe.html) has been released under CC-BY-SA & GDFL and I will be re-forwarding this email from Dr. Blakey to OTRS as soon as I get these images uploaded under new names as you suggested. I will then update the description box for this image to point to the correct image on Commons. – Maky « talk » 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your opposition to this DR illustrates the reason that I insist that all of the existing Blakey images be removed. This is indeed the same map as the 35moll.jpg version for which we have permission, but it is at much higher resolution -- look, for example at what will become the Gulf of Aden. On the map for which we have permission it is two pixels wide. On this map, it is six pixels. Since Blakey's permission was for specific, low resolution, versions of 27 maps, this is not covered by the permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I had forgotten this was higher resolution, so you are correct. To remedy this problem without deleting the image entirely, couldn't we resize the image to match the resolution released by Dr. Blakey, and then delete the original upload from the history? – Maky « talk » 16:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Btw, I have made the corrections. I have uploaded a properly resized image and pointed to a new upload for which I have submitted the formal release. I just have to wait for OTRS to respond, which may take a bit due to their backlog. All that is left is to delete the original upload in the file history, assuming that's possible. – Maky « talk » 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I have removed the old version, so this one can be kept. I do not understand what you are waiting for from OTRS -- the permission is there in ticket #2012111710011476 . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In the two years since I hid the higher res version of this file, Commons, advised by CC counsel, has reached a different understanding of the CC license with respect to resolution -- namely that if a creator licenses a low res version of an image, the license also covers other resolutions. It is not possible to do what Blakey attempted here -- to write a license for only the low res version. Therefore, I have reverted this image to the high res version supplied by Maky. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Claimed to be own work, but it isn't. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio; claimed to be own work but based on http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-103227926/stock-photo-fingers-crossed-behind-a-suited-backside.html bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Source (Flickr) sais: All rights reserved 93.129.20.46 12:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep; free license confirmed by Flickrbot at time of upload. (Add change of license notice to image description.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept. Confirmed free license when uploaded; classic case of {{Flickr-change-of-license}} -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect license. The file is a book scan and we need permission from the publisher. Sreejith K (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See File:Precurenewstage.jpg in en wiki. Sreejith K (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo Sreejith K (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This logo is unnecessary because the radio station no longer exists. Fonadier 
(talk) 12:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This logo is unnecessary because the radio station no longer exists. Fonadier (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
File is edited and is misrepresentative. Should be deleted. 130.58.199.244 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom or edit out addition. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This a wrong version of the coat of arms of Tanah Datar, look here. It isn't in use of any project or site, too. Topographie (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of For Dummies. And the original description added by Speedyleedy (talk · contribs) appears to be vandalism. Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is it a copyright violation if it has a CC licence?
- If you refere to File:For-dummies-guy.gif as beeing CC as the base image for your derivative work File:For-dummies-guy-lr.gif: Yes, File:For-dummies-guy.gif has been uploaded to Commons with a CC license. But is this license valid? No, the license must come from the copyright holder, not from some random guy who decides to upload the file to Commons with false "own work" claims. --Martin H. (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is it a copyright violation if it has a CC licence?
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be Korman's daughter. It's not clear if she took the photo. Notice the CBS in the lower right-hand corner. Also, the image may be found at http://www.edhumphries.com/2008/12/the-2008-ho-ho-ho-throwdown-round-3.html and at http://www.fold3.com/page/82520783_harvey_herschel_korman/. Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E9%99%88%E7%82%B3%E9%A1%BA.jpg Woonfui93 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Peronal picture of user, not in use anywhere, out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The source url is 404 and the subject of the picture is unidentified. That leaves us with no way to verify the copyright status of the image. I have deleted the copy from en.wiki as an F8. Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- According to this the subject is en:Kazi Nazrul Islam. Geagea (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the image was uploaded by the subject, but this does not look like a self-taken work to me. Smaller version found on company website. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Found in many places online, including on the subject's blog. No metadata, low res. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The image is tagged as being released under copyleft license, but I can find no evidence of that on the source website. Fanpop has a general notice at the bottom of each page: © 2006-2012 Fanpop, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Paul Erik (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
![03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/19#c-Paul_Erik-2012-11-19T03:32:00.000Z-File:The_"Fun."_Band.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
![23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/19#c-INeverCry-2012-11-25T23:53:00.000Z-File:The_"Fun."_Band.png){kind=link}
Not my photo, unknown source. Sorry for uploading. Fungus Guy (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status unclear. If the image is not in public domain due to age, this is a derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- And what about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Matchboxes ? --Ludek (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about it Ludek? How is that relevant to mention here? -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Original may be PD for some reason (for example {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}), but it seems better info would be needed on date. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivativew work of a copyrighted design. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matchbox Black Cat from Czestochowa.jpg Sreejith K (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No proof that the design is in public domain. Sreejith K (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No proof that the design is in public domain. Sreejith K (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- And what about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Matchboxes ? --Ludek (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
nonsence request, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Matchboxes, -jkb- (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Lets not forget that the mass DR was closed for a different reason. What about this file. Is this image in public domain? Or is it simple enough to be out of copyright? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No proof that the design is in public domain. Sreejith K (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I very much doubt this is the work of the uploader as it is found here and was taken pre-1982. Ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No proof that the design is in public domain. Sreejith K (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, as the addition of the false colors and other extraordinary photo processing are such that image is not a reflection of reality. Therefore, this is no more useful than a vanity art project, and is out of scope. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54 for consensus has already been achieved at en.wiki that the image is not suitable for use.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. It is too unrealistic to be educational. Thundersnow (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, as the addition of the false colors and other extraordinary photo processing are such that image is not a reflection of reality. Therefore, this is no more useful than a vanity art project, and is out of scope. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54 for consensus has already been achieved at en.wiki that the image is not suitable for use. GrapedApe (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It is too unrealistic to be educational. Thundersnow (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, as the addition of the false colors and other extraordinary photo processing are such that image is not a reflection of reality. Therefore, this is no more useful than a vanity art project, and is out of scope. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54 for consensus has already been achieved at en.wiki that the image is not suitable for use. GrapedApe (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It is too unrealistic to be educational. Thundersnow (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, as the addition of the false colors and other extraordinary photo processing are such that image is not a reflection of reality. Therefore, this is no more useful than a vanity art project, and is out of scope. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54 for consensus has already been achieved at en.wiki that the image is not suitable for use. GrapedApe (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It is too unrealistic to be educational. Thundersnow (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
File is corrupt. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's try Category:Video repair needed first. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo Sreejith K (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of an unidentified personality. Sreejith K (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Already circulating since 2007 I ("(C) Copyright 2010.Tha O Show") or 2007 II (identical size) or 02.2008 (collage). Gunnex (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Created after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio and no reference to support the map data Infestor T • C 10:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- as for the possible copyvio, it seems that it might have been derived from this map, whose copyright status and accuracy is unknown. -- Infestor T • C 11:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the author of the photograph, but he gives no evidence to support this and given the nature of the photograph I believe he may not be the author. The author also submitted a related article to AfC on enwiki which was declined as being an advertisement. Please also see the uploader's other uploads. Odie5533 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Looks like a crop from unknown source... Obs.: Related article was deleted in ptwiki. Gunnex (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
THis appears to have been scanned from a printed photograph. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, as the addition of the false colors and other extraordinary photo processing are such that image is not a reflection of reality. Therefore, this is no more useful than a vanity art project, and is out of scope. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 54 for consensus has already been achieved at en.wiki that the image is not suitable for use. GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It is too unrealistic to be educational. Thundersnow (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded in 19.01.2009 to illustrate the ship that sank on 11.01.2009. Image already circulated in (example) 12.01.2009 (Copyright © 2008-2012 Bappeda Kota Samarinda) = http://bappeda.samarindakota.go.id/data/foto/berita/2009011210364852fd0c2.jpg (last modified: 12.01.2009). Gunnex (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Este mapa es obsoleto, y ya no existen dos husos horarios en Mato Grosso. Fonadier (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fonadier's map of Brazil shows it correctly: only one timezone. This map here is wrong. NNW (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Not quite clear whether the image depicts the user itself or some fictional character. This should be clearly stated. If the image was copied from some internet page without permission, please state this here. ALE! ¿…? 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:FF 68 Strecke.jpg:
- StepMap wants to be paid for commercial use. This isn't a free license but similar to a NC license -> incompatible to Commons.
- StepMap insists on keeping its logo. This contradicts a free re-use of this map. NNW (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo is credited to "Al Quds Brigade", so the IDF cannot release this under a free licence. This DR also applies to the following works:
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Islamic Jihad Kindergarten Graduation in Gaza (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation.jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation (2).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation (3).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation (5).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Gaza Kindergarten Graduation (6).jpg
- File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Islamic Jihad Kindergarten Graduation in Gaza.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All of the above are credited to Al Quds, or are derivatives of those works. russavia (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Don't see the Al Quds Brigades having assumed copyright for any of these images. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright of this photo in this photo does not lie with the IDF, but rather with the people who took the photo. The IDF are unable to licence this derivative work under a free licence russavia (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, "artice" del. on DE Nolispanmo 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, "artice" del. on DE Nolispanmo 15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Flickr - The Israel Project - Jabari Was Hamas's Bin Laden.jpg added by January (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Suspected Flickr washing. There is no evidence that the creator of the image at Flickr was using a free image. Matthiasb (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since the original file that I derived the image from has passed a review yesterday, I assumed the source was legitimate. --Styko (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, the image used in the Flickr file is the same as this image which is credited to AFP/Getty Images. (The review was by a bot, which can only check that the licence tag matches the licence at Flickr.) January (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per January.--CennoxX (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickr washing. Original is not free. |EPO| da: 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, outside of Commons:Project scope. Possible attack image/defamation/violation of personality rights. Unclear source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The filename is not correct. It should be "PuertoDeTazacorte". If deleted I will upload the same file with correct name. Or You can rename? ArishG (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect PD rationale. Not ineligible for copyright protection. Does not consist of simple geometric shapes. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright situation. The original photographer is 70 years dead? Probably not, we need his permission or you have delete this image! Ras67 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like a school class photo, and those are not under copyright prior to 1978. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Some info on the actual source would be needed to determine that. Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, false license & authorship claim, false date. Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Useless low resolution quasi copy of Dmitri Kondratyev 2010.jpg Ras67 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Talmoryair as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: after the request of Israel Hershberg. It's a free image with OTRS confirmed, we don't just speedy delete those. Multichill (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
no ORTS, this is a flyer under copyright (year 1994) Paralacre (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Je ne parle que le français. J'ai créé cette affiche (conception) dans le cadre d'une campagne contre la venue du Pape Jean-Paul II en Belgique. Elle a été imprimée à ma demande par l'Imprimerie 34 de Toulouse. J'en suis l'éditeur responsable : ligne verticale, en bas, à droite. Comme toutes mes créations, elle est libre de droits, en anglais : royalty-free. Merci. Utilisateur:Noelbabar (Discussion utilisateur:Noelbabar d) 19 novembre 2012 à 22:59 (CET)
- Bonjour,
- Cela me semble tout à fait correct pour la mise en page de l'affiche. Celle-ci contient cependant une photo du pape, celle-ci était-elle libre de droit également ? Quelle en est son photographe ? --Dereckson (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also: File:Alternative Libertaire 1994 11.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The poster is a derivative of the news photo. (The uploader never claimed that he is the owner of the copyright on the news photo. An unauthorized reuse of an unfree photo on a poster might or might not be legal under some sort of free speech exception in certain circumstances, but in any case the photo can't be offered with a free license without the permission of its copyright owner.) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a copyrighted book. It says "Picture taken with permission of the Albert Muis family", but it doesn't mean that Albert Muis family hold it copyright, nor that it is true. Ralgistalk 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Not de minimis: The background photograph is most likely copyrighted. Ralgistalk 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is, I just transferred this picture from Flickr. --CherryX (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
A copyrighted advert. Eleassar (t/p) 20:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
out of projekt scope LutzBruno (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Montage suffered a copyvio (in 03.2011...). The file need 1. an edit to remove the copyvio or 2. could be substituted with File:Asuncion Montage.jpg (in highly wiki-use) but this one is as of today also in danger (I notified the uploader) or 3. should be deleted as the montage is distributing copyrighted material... Gunnex (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France, the sculptor Jacques Monestier is alive. Coyau (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wrote to the artist today, asking for his permission to leave this photo here. My argument was that it would improve the article, that it would not harm him in any way, and that, if anything, it would only generate additional exposure for his art. I'll let you know what he answers, if he answers. Stijndon (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
File is not free, as the Open Government Licence is not valid for logos containing crests. Cloudbound (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I, Hailstunna, uploaded this image and it is no longer usable, nor tied to any wiki. Hailstunna (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, unused file Wvk (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, unused file Wvk (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I, Hailstunna, uploaded this image and it is no longer usable, nor tied to any wiki. Hailstunna (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, unused file Wvk (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, unused file Wvk (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
not needed anymore, svg available and better 92.193.41.168 23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- So far, I had the problem that depending on the browser the greek symbols were not displayed correctly. Meanwhile, all browsers that I've tried do it correctly, so from my POV, the image can be deleted. --olenz (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Wvk (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
NPOV. This piece of propaganda has no value. It is also misleading because because it was created by government agency people can identify it as information יורם שורק (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep propaganda images/posters can be kept in commons. it's also not out of scope as it can later on be used in an israeli-palestinian conflict related article.-- Infestor T • C 15:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you label this "propaganda" and want to delete it, then you should also label as propaganda and delete the scores of anti-Semitic Carlos Latuff images you have.
Kept: Not valid grounds of deletion under Commons policy. Commons does not have a NPOV requirement like Wikipedia - please see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Infographics, Important Announcement For The Residents of The Gaza Strip.jpg
[edit]
NPOV. Using Wikicommons for non informative propaganda יורם שורק (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This issue is realeted to the whole category:IDF military propaganda during Operation Pillar of Cloud. As commons has some categories and sub-categories of 'propaganda', and the pictures are under category which use the word 'propaganda' in its name, I don't think it is a NPOV. It just describes the propaganda, the same as a pictures of demonstrations and pcitures of Advertising. Netanel h (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The huligan Israeli army is now again abusing the Wikimedia auspices in a spree of a despicable propaganda: Delete its spokesmanship files altogether! Orrlingtalk 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not valid grounds of deletion under Commons policy. Commons does not have a NPOV requirement like Wikipedia - please see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. The issue is whether the file is in scope. A quick google search indicates that the Israeli Defense Forces actually used this image for social media propaganda purposes. Regardless of one's opinions of the conflict or of the content of the image, I am hard pressed to see how this image is not in scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Identical to File:KARTA MAGNETYCZNA.jpg Froztbyte (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted both as copyright violations . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
_2012.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2012.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Titodutta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No clear indication of permission in the mentioned source (WARNING: That is flash site, you'll be welcomed by some music and dramatic trailers there, that's why I hate flash sites, you can not control content) Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
_2012.jpg){kind=link}
- I have converted this to DR since I lost track in that site after that unexpected music and jumping and dancing of trailers and comments related to suicide. So possibilities are there are some license information hidden somewhere at any corner of the site which I did not notice. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: THe site actually has a "stop the flash" button, so I was able to look for copyright information -- couldn't find any. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
_2012.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Nnkrkrhhdi as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This file is the copyright violation because ....
- It comes from: Press Photo Japan's MIN of Foreign Affairs Kiichi Miyazawa | eBay. This website says "Copyright © 2009 - Present, Historic Images, Inc. - historicimages-store".
- Mr. Kiichi Miyazawa served as the Minister for Foreign Affairs from December 9, 1974 to September 15, 1976. Because this photograph was taken after 1956.
- Uploader said "This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." However, the proof which supports his testimony does not exist.
|source=http://www.ebay.com/itm/Press-Photo-Japans-Min-Foreign-Affairs-Kiichi-Miyazawa-/251076487111 INeverCry 05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -Read the statement posted below the photo. The photo has no copyright markings on it as can be seen in the links above.
United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. 1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.” 2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles. 3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe.") Look at the back and the cover of the photo, I don't see any copyright markings. Also, look at the photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Sullivan_Cole_Porter_Toast_of_the_Town_1952.JPG). Isn't this also from Historic Images? The thing is, you have to see the photo as it is, the back and the front, and see if the photo is still copyrighted. As far as I know, this image does not have a copyright marking in the back or the front. --Daffy123 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Same reason as above. I saw the image of Ed Sullivan, and although the selling is expired, it did come from Historic Images site. That image was from February, and it didn't have any issues with copyright at all. The same should apply to this image.--Deklerk12 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This photograph is the press releases with which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan provided the press. Then this problem is judged based on a Copyright law of Japan. If this photographic image was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946, under jurisdiction of the Government of Japan, this photographic image is considered to be public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan. But this photograph was taken from December 9, 1974 to September 15, 1976.--あそぼよワサワサッ！ (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Info Uploader has repeated copyright infringement. (c.f. his talk page) I think that he is Long-term abuse.--あそぼよワサワサッ！ (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for the quick reply. I acknowledge your point, but then my question is, "Why would an American company sell this image if the copyright is in the hands of the Japanese Foreign Ministry?" If you are right--and please tell me how you can verify that this photo comes from the Japanese Foreign Ministry--there would be no reason for the the company to sell the image when the image is clearly in the hands of the Japanese government. As for your comment that I am making a long-term abuse, I am tired of commenting. Please refer to this page: (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Daffy123) which has details of images that I uploaded. The comments on my talk page doesn't mean that I am deliberately making long-term abuse to slander others' image. If you want to debate about the legitimacy of uploading this image, go ahead. But if you try to attack me personally, I have no choice but to ask whether you, as a user and a human being has made absolutely no error in your life? As no nation should execute a person for committing an sin that is small compared to his/her feats, I personally feel offended by your request that I am a long-term abuse. --Daffy123 (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Info According to your contribution page and talk page, I cannot see anything in which you made a contribution or uploaded an image. If you were an active user, it would be easy for you to acknowledge how hard it is to upload and edit pages. --Daffy123 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because he uploaded many images, it doesn't follow that he was absolved of his behavior. He has repeated copyright infringement. Generally speaking, copyright infringement is a crime.--あそぼよワサワサッ！ (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Daffy123 said "This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." However, the proof which supports his testimony does not exist.--Beautifulcatwoman (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As I said, I believe this remains in the public domain because this was taken before 1977 and was published right after the photo was taken. As for what Beautifulcatwoman said, it's not that there is not evidence, it's that the evidence that I show is not considered as evidence for some people. --Daffy123 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Because this photograph was taken between December 9, 1974 and September 15, 1976, it doesn't follow that this photograph was published between 1923 and 1977. --Nnkrkrhhdi (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be a Japanese image, so US copyright law and the lack of notice is irrelevant.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure not CC-By-SA, sure not ceated in 2012, probably not created by User:Moulins : it's a simple, but copyrigted logo (or need a proof it's free licence) --MGuf (d) 06:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you go to http://acipa.free.fr/ and put your mouse on the logo at the top left of the page you can read :
Ce visuel, comme le logo et le badge rouge et jaune sont la propriété de l'ACIPA. Merci de pas les utiliser sur des textes que nous n'avons pas signés.
- It's clearly copyrighted.
- --Hercule (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Si j'avais vu ça, c'était "speedy" plutôt que cette page... ----MGuf (d) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- A mon avis c'est speedy qui convient ;-) --Hercule (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Si j'avais vu ça, c'était "speedy" plutôt que cette page... ----MGuf (d) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If it is Moulins work, as claimed, then it is out of scope as a personal creation. If not, it has no permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. To be copied to WikiVoyage. Yann (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, assuming the details of the statue's authors (on the file description page and here) are correct. I don't think it's in use on Wikivoyage; would Wikilivres be a happier home for it? --Avenue (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Copy to Wikipedia instead then. It should be renamed. He was marshal, not admiral. Yann (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is not valid any more; anyway, it's based on unreliable sources (on an Internet-forum), although the author may be recognized as a reliable one; in any case, this scheme includes many statements, which are hardly to be supported by the official science. It states e.g. that the Czech are the closest ethnic group to the Greeks, etc. David.s.kats (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC) A valid link is found, but it's still very dubious that such a document can be identified as reliable. --David.s.kats (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I updated link and added information about source. The scheme is taken from a paper published in the high-citation (impact-factor > 5) scientific journal. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it can still be a fringe theory and it probably is, just like the one of the Nostratic languages etc. --David.s.kats (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you propose to delete it just because it's fringe? What about Category:Perpetual motion machines? :) Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- We already discussed it. No, but it then must be attributed to fringe theories. As long as it isn't, we have to add this information to every article in which this scheme is being used (and probably explain why no other, i.e. less fridge scheme is provided, and I am pretty sure they simply don't exist), including all future articles and discuss it every time. --David.s.kats (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- According to COM:NPOV, "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another". You should arise your questions on article talk pages where this image is used. If you'd like to attribute this image as fringe in it description - just do it. I see no reason for deletion. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, there is no rule which obliges to discuss a picture on four talk pages or more, when it will be added to additional articles, especially when the matter may be simply false. I also cannot attribute this picture as a fringe one, neither is there a technical possibility to do it. --David.s.kats (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- According to COM:NPOV, "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another". You should arise your questions on article talk pages where this image is used. If you'd like to attribute this image as fringe in it description - just do it. I see no reason for deletion. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- We already discussed it. No, but it then must be attributed to fringe theories. As long as it isn't, we have to add this information to every article in which this scheme is being used (and probably explain why no other, i.e. less fridge scheme is provided, and I am pretty sure they simply don't exist), including all future articles and discuss it every time. --David.s.kats (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you propose to delete it just because it's fringe? What about Category:Perpetual motion machines? :) Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it can still be a fringe theory and it probably is, just like the one of the Nostratic languages etc. --David.s.kats (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As Artem Korzhimanov as noted, it is Commons policy that we do not make decisions on issues like this. That is up to those who might want to use the image, both on Wikipedias, and elsewhere. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
原作者請求刪除 玄史生 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - although the uploader requested deletion, I see this picture could be useful for illustrating how the job of airport crews looks like. As far as I can see, there are no other concerns regarding copyright and privacy in it. --whym (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Really Own work? The depicted person died in 1987, but the description says 2012. Leyo 13:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I got this photo as a present in 2012. I do not know, how to make the license in this case.
The donator is rather interested to have the photo in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernd5326 (talk • contribs)
- The author needs to send a permission to OTRS. --Leyo 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you we will try this.
Today the permission was sent by the author to OTRS.bernd5326 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment There is no OTRS message that contains the word Gegusin, so either it has not been sent, or it does not include the most obvious word required in it. Note, please, that ownership of a copy of a photograph does not make you the copyright owner. The permission will have to come from the photographer who took this picture 25+ years ago. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a copy of the mail which was sent by Yuri Kaganovskii from Tel Aviv, unfortunately in English "Gegusin" is spelled "Geguzin":
"Dear Sirs,
Thereby I confirm that I'm the author of the picture of Professor Ya. E Geguzin and I agree to release the image for free publications in Wikipedia.
Sincerely yours,
Yuri Kaganovskii"
I hope you can find it. bernd5326 14:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
When I started to write the corresponding page in German language, the editors suggested to write "Gegusin" instead of "Geguzin". bernd5326 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The message as quoted above appears as OTRS ticket #2012112010006645. Unfortunately, "free publications in Wikipedia" is a very limited license and does not meet our requirements. The OTRS volunteer replied to that effect on November 26. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alvnarvaja (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying around 15 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different panoramio-/flickr-accounts, skyscrapercity.com, blogs etc.) it´s difficult to configure: What´s his own work and what not? Nokia X6-00 seems to be his digicam - files (max res. uploaded) which I will ignore and I presume that this Flickr-account is the same user. But the rest (which I couldn´t identify) is quite doubtful: Example: File:Ybytyruzu.jpg is watermarked with "Derlis Cristaldo" = this Flickr user = User:Alvnarvaja? Apparently not. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Ypacarai.jpg
- File:Ypacarai 2.jpg
- File:Lago Ypacarai atardecer.jpg
- File:Ybytyruzu.jpg
- File:Tom jobim.jpg
- File:Hidalgo y costilla.jpg
- File:Puente de la Amistad Tormenta.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Jean Pierre Magnet.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Denniss (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Graphiques SpritMonitor de Vi..Cult...
[edit]- File:1.Consommation de 66 modèles de voitures diesel d'internautes (Spritmonitor) 3,71 litres au 100 km à 6,60.png
- File:2.Consommation de 55 modèles de voitures diesel d'internautes (Spritmonitor) 6,61 litres au 100 km à 11,56.png
- File:3.Consommation de 56 modèles de voitures essence d'internautes (Spritmonitor) 5.23 litres au 100 km à 7.56 .png
- File:4.Consommation de 57 modèles de voitures essence d'internautes (Spritmonitor) 7.73 litres au 100 km à 8.91 .png
- File:5.Consommation de 45 modèles de voitures essence d'internautes (Spritmonitor) 8.97 litres au 100 km à 13.63 .png
_3,71_litres_au_100_km_%C3%A0_6,60.png){kind=link}
_6,61_litres_au_100_km_%C3%A0_11,56.png){kind=link}
_5.23_litres_au_100_km_%C3%A0_7.56_.png){kind=link}
_7.73_litres_au_100_km_%C3%A0_8.91_.png){kind=link}
_8.97_litres_au_100_km_%C3%A0_13.63_.png){kind=link}
Pourquoi tout est écrit en anglais, tout à coup ? :-(
Bonjour,
Je pense que les graphiques listés ici sont à retirer car ils se basent sur une base de données non libre de droits hébergée sur le site Spritmonitor.de (voir les mentions légales du site : «
4. Copyright [...] Tous les contenus conçus et créés pour Spritmonitor.de est (sic) la propriété de Fisch und Fischl GmbH. »).
Il y a peut-être d'autres fichiers du même style présents sur Commons.
Qu'est-ce qu'elle est longue, votre procédure de demande de suppression de fichiers !!! Je me demande si je vais arriver au bout !
À bientôt --81.64.105.233 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Peut-être que vu qu'une personne ci-dessus se pose des questions sur la suppression de ces images. Il serait bien peut-être de demander des tickets OTRS à Spritmonitor.de afin de ne pas avoir besoin de supprimer ces fichiers. Peut-être que quelqu'un va en faire la demande à Spritmonitor.de. Les contenus conçus et créés ne sont pas les données de consommations rentrées par les automobilistes, je pense. Peut-être que je me trompe. 19:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerveillePédia (talk • contribs) Sachant que Vi..Cult... et MerveillePédia sont, si j'ai bien compris, la même personne.
- Les données de consommation appartiennent de toutes façons soit à Spritmonitor, soit aux contributeurs qui les ont mises en ligne, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi elles seraient libres de droits. Donc, d'après moi, le problème demeure le même 81.64.105.233 12:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept The fuel consumption data is factual and therefore cannot have a copyright. The graphs are ordinary bar graphs which are too simple for copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Savin Sever
[edit]Copyrighted architecture by Savin Sever (1923-2003). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 17:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- No objection to deletion. Doremo (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Atomium
[edit]- File:Atomium pic-.JPG
- File:Atomium pic-001.JPG
- File:Atomium pic-002.JPG
- File:Atomium pic-003.JPG
- File:Atomium pic-004.JPG
- File:Atomium pic-007.JPG
- File:Atomium, Helsey Park, Brussels, Belgium.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. The Atomium is © SABAM 67.87.46.39 15:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not that it matters, but Atomium seems to be © fr:André Waterkeyn's heirs. SABAM is a legal entity representing copyright holders in certain situations. For example, legal claims may come from SABAM on behalf of the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
These images show a building by w:André Waterkeyn. Belgian law doesn't allow photos of buildings without the permission of the architect unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years.
- File:AtoniumEvening BrusselsB.JPG
- File:AtoniumNightView BrusselsB.JPG
- File:ATOMIUM HEYSEL BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7687216588).jpg
- File:ATOMIUM HEYSEL BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7687226638).jpg
- File:AtomiumBrusselsBanner.JPG
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690433388).jpg
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690447552).jpg
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690451676).jpg
- File:THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690456822).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all images. The Atomium is clearly the subject of these photos. 67.87.46.39 01:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom russavia (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
No FOP in Belgium
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
No freedom of panorama in Belgium.
Stefan4 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
No FOP in Belgium
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
The architect died less than 70 years ago.
.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
The architect died less than 70 years ago.
- File:ATOMIUM HEYSEL BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7687216588).jpg
- File:ATOMIUM HEYSEL BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7687226638).jpg
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690433388).jpg
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690447552).jpg
- File:INSIDE THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690451676).jpg
- File:THE ATOMIUM NEAR HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690456822).jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Atomium
Derivative works of texts around and/or inside Atomium.
- File:ATOMIUM-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (19).jpg
- File:ATOMIUM-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (20).jpg
- File:ATOMIUM-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (25).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Nothing copyrightable shown in the image: all of them fall under {{PD-ineligible}} and/or {{PD-text}}. No FOP-issue. --High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's no chance that something as long as this is {{PD-ineligible}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Stefan, I'm at least as respectful of literary copyright as you are, but I'm not sure about these. Although presented in sentence form, they amount to lists of names (in the first and third cases) and lists of dimensions (in the second case). I think these would fail copyright in the USA -- I don't really have any idea about the TOO for literary works in Belgium, but I think we can keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept, PD-text or PD-ineligible --Denniss (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Atomium
[edit]See COM:FOP#Belgium.
Stefan4 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Atomium
[edit]No FOP in Belgium.
Stefan4 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Aside from the Atomium, which is obvious, I also doubt that the copyright to all of the other images in this poster belong to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. --Krd 17:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Atomium
[edit]Non-free architecture.
Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Belgium --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Questionable authorship claims based on the user's other uploads (claiming to be the author of channel logos and non-free Internet images). Even if the authorship claims are true, the photos are unused and apparently outside of Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bachaumont (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text only logo with questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This is our own logo, i dont see why you did not accept it Bachaumont
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmed SHareef2nd (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:بائعة شاي حبشية.GIF
- File:Habash shisha.GIF
- File:طقوس القهوة الإثيوبية.gif
- File:بائعة شاي بالخرطوم.jpg
- File:شوارعية.jpg
- File:شارع النيل الخرطوم.jpg
- File:ست شاي.jpg
- File:أمريكية تعمل ست شاي بالخرطوم.jpg
- File:بائعة شاي أو ست شاي باللغة السودانية.jpg
- File:ست الشاي السودانية.jpg
- File:Wood exporting to Sudan from Ethiopia.jpg
- File:Metemma Streets.jpg
- File:Children employment in Metemma Ethiopia.jpg
- File:Whore house in Metemma.jpg
- File:Shawa village darfur Sudan.jpg
- File:تشييع ضحيا المجزرة في ميدان التحرير بالفاشر ..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Naser al-Din Shah slide
[edit]
Note: I have put the two DRs of the two versions together, as I think it's safe to say that what's an argument for one is an argument for the other. Please add comments in the #Continued discussion section. -mattbuck (Talk)
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Original research, no source documents used in creation of poorly executed and childish sketch. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikimedia is not intended to be a repository for every bit of juvenilia.... 99.0.80.70 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that there is also the more full-blown version File:Naser al-Din Shah slide.jpg. I think we should delete for the reason given by the IP, but I have problems with setting precedents. Are there actual policy grounds for doing so? As soon as we allow taste to be grounds for deletion we open a door to arbirary decision making. There are many user-created drawings on Commons depicting objects, charts, concepts and even people. The concept of OR is very difficult to apply to images becauise they are not statements as such. Paul Barlow (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per Paul Barlow's point: agreed that matters of taste are dicey. What's below standard is the quality of the drawing, and we do make judgements--however subjective they may seem to those who aren't well versed in aesthetic matters--as to which images are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Per this page re: suitability of work [1], Is it likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project? For example, can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion?, the answer would be no. If this cropped up in an article it would, one hopes, be removed posthaste as a remedial work of draftsmanship. 99.0.80.70 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, it has [2]. Sorry, but it's an embarrassingly poor rendering. 99.0.80.70 17:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per Paul Barlow's point: agreed that matters of taste are dicey. What's below standard is the quality of the drawing, and we do make judgements--however subjective they may seem to those who aren't well versed in aesthetic matters--as to which images are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Per this page re: suitability of work [1], Is it likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project? For example, can you point to a Wikipedia article that would benefit from this file's inclusion?, the answer would be no. If this cropped up in an article it would, one hopes, be removed posthaste as a remedial work of draftsmanship. 99.0.80.70 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm delighted that such judgements only seem "subjective" "to those who aren't well versed in aesthetic matters". Actually, I think the draftsmanship isn't bad at all. But what do I know? I'm only a professional art historian. Paul Barlow (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, point taken, and no disrespect intended. I practice, teach, and write about art professionally, and find this abysmal in nearly every way. So we'll have to agree to disagree. 99.0.80.70 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's sort of Kirchner meets Tracy Emin. Paul Barlow (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- That made me smile, which is a welcome response on this, or any, day. First, Kirchner could draw. And even if we give this drawing the benefit of the doubt, and ascribe to its creator a post-modern intent, the question remains whether that makes it appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. If it had Emin's signature, well, then we'd have an interesting discussion. 99.0.80.70 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, delete all versions of this terribly childish drawing. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- That made me smile, which is a welcome response on this, or any, day. First, Kirchner could draw. And even if we give this drawing the benefit of the doubt, and ascribe to its creator a post-modern intent, the question remains whether that makes it appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. If it had Emin's signature, well, then we'd have an interesting discussion. 99.0.80.70 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's sort of Kirchner meets Tracy Emin. Paul Barlow (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, point taken, and no disrespect intended. I practice, teach, and write about art professionally, and find this abysmal in nearly every way. So we'll have to agree to disagree. 99.0.80.70 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm delighted that such judgements only seem "subjective" "to those who aren't well versed in aesthetic matters". Actually, I think the draftsmanship isn't bad at all. But what do I know? I'm only a professional art historian. Paul Barlow (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As I mentioned here, it is not a research a all. This slide with many details is elaborated in historical references and I just draw this image according to them.Monfie (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:SCOPE, if it is being used by a Wikimedia Project, then it must generally be given the presumption of being useful regardless of any quality problem it may have. Since this appears in the Farsi Wikipedia article [3] that presumption of utility has been met. That said, by all means please replace it with something better. Dragons flight (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. How can a drawing be construed as "original research"? It is a drawing; as such, it is hard to say what kind of point it is making or not making. I do not think any of us here, myself included, are qualified to judge based on matters of taste, appropriateness, usefulness, or artistic quality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then we don't make judgments re: the quality of photographic images? Because if we cede those decisions, it follows--perhaps at some remove, but inevitably-- that we're not qualified to judge content and grammar in articles, either. 99.0.80.70 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Pictures. Encyclopedia articles. Two different things. I don't see how we can judge pictures by the criteria we use to judge encyclopedia articles. Does a picture have a bias? If so, what? Is a picture "neutral"? These are difficult issues. And for people to battle here about what is considered "quality" and what isn't, well, seems like a no-win situation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not really different. Whether it involves words or images, every decision we make as a community regarding aptness and quality of content is subjective, yet is informed by our experience and knowledge; the more of each, the stronger the likelihood of raising the project's quality. For example, this reversion, which you may or may not agree with, was based upon my experience, and involves the subjective aesthetics of writing and my perception of appropriate tone for an encyclopedic lede [4]. This has nothing to do with bias, but with competence--if we have no problem deleting or rewriting poor prose, then there's reason to anticipate a similar discretion in the use of images. Now, if Paul Barlow and I, knowledgeable in parallel fields, disagree, then there's an opportunity to engage in discussion that does have relevance, well beyond the desire to win an argument. Though that would be nice. 99.0.80.70 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. As I see it, the idea of an encyclopedia article is to describe a particular subject: what it is, how it relates to other subjects, why it is notable, and so forth. It is about information, knowledge, expanding human understanding. It is possible to judge alternative wordings by the standard of how well an article imparts such information; for example, in the article Vanity Fair, you chose one wording as superior to another (I agree with your choice btw). In contrast, pictures may have value regardless of how well they convey information. A picture can be beautiful in itself. Pictures can be used within encyclopedia articles to illustrate a point, or when words, alone, may not be sufficient to convey a particular meaning. Pictures may be used to support an argument, or may not be. Pictures may have a purely aesthetic quality (unlike an encyclopedia article). If so, people perceive beauty differently according to the old eye of the beholder saying -- so, who is to say whether one picture is beautiful or not? Me? You? Paul Barlow? Somebody else? Can you see how arguments over artistic quality could lead to pointless battling?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, no more pointless than making discretionary judgments on the quality of prose, which may be similarly rationalized as being in the eye of the beholder. Of course you're right that an image may serve multiple functions, but in the service of enriching an encyclopedic entry its primary purpose, as you stated, is to illustrate a point. Now, that said, we don't use images that have the photographer's thumb overlapping a corner, and it's reasonable to expect that a drawing demonstrate some level of competence. It seems to me you're saying, in essence, when it comes to images anything's okay, and there are no standards, or even a semblance of such. Even a small town periodical has an art editor who makes such determinations. To be blunt: we value the contributions good writers and copyeditors make to this site--to say that those who can add substance to efforts to distinguish good images from bad are superfluous is disappointing. 99.0.80.70 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. As I see it, the idea of an encyclopedia article is to describe a particular subject: what it is, how it relates to other subjects, why it is notable, and so forth. It is about information, knowledge, expanding human understanding. It is possible to judge alternative wordings by the standard of how well an article imparts such information; for example, in the article Vanity Fair, you chose one wording as superior to another (I agree with your choice btw). In contrast, pictures may have value regardless of how well they convey information. A picture can be beautiful in itself. Pictures can be used within encyclopedia articles to illustrate a point, or when words, alone, may not be sufficient to convey a particular meaning. Pictures may be used to support an argument, or may not be. Pictures may have a purely aesthetic quality (unlike an encyclopedia article). If so, people perceive beauty differently according to the old eye of the beholder saying -- so, who is to say whether one picture is beautiful or not? Me? You? Paul Barlow? Somebody else? Can you see how arguments over artistic quality could lead to pointless battling?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not really different. Whether it involves words or images, every decision we make as a community regarding aptness and quality of content is subjective, yet is informed by our experience and knowledge; the more of each, the stronger the likelihood of raising the project's quality. For example, this reversion, which you may or may not agree with, was based upon my experience, and involves the subjective aesthetics of writing and my perception of appropriate tone for an encyclopedic lede [4]. This has nothing to do with bias, but with competence--if we have no problem deleting or rewriting poor prose, then there's reason to anticipate a similar discretion in the use of images. Now, if Paul Barlow and I, knowledgeable in parallel fields, disagree, then there's an opportunity to engage in discussion that does have relevance, well beyond the desire to win an argument. Though that would be nice. 99.0.80.70 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Pictures. Encyclopedia articles. Two different things. I don't see how we can judge pictures by the criteria we use to judge encyclopedia articles. Does a picture have a bias? If so, what? Is a picture "neutral"? These are difficult issues. And for people to battle here about what is considered "quality" and what isn't, well, seems like a no-win situation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then we don't make judgments re: the quality of photographic images? Because if we cede those decisions, it follows--perhaps at some remove, but inevitably-- that we're not qualified to judge content and grammar in articles, either. 99.0.80.70 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I can't believe an image as amateurish and unsuitable as this is generating this amount of discussion. This is a no-brainer for anybody with common sense. With time-wasting activities such as this, no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Does anybody remember what an encyclopedia is? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Really? I can't believe this was even uploaded to Commons. Completely agree with Tom Reedy above. Just wow. Jesse V. (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Could an underlying unspoken issue here be that the drawing depicts naked bathing women and therefore possibly constitutes pornography? I am wondering if this is the case since other reasons for rejecting the picture don't ring right to me, such as original research (ie how can a drawing be evaluated as "research" or even "original research"?), childishness (what does that mean?), incompetence etc. If so, then perhaps discussion should focus on whether this work constitutes pornography. My sense is it does not since it does not seem to me that the primary purpose of this artwork is only to arouse members of the opposite sex or appeal only to baser instincts. Wikimedia Commons has many depictions of naked women bathing in similar situations which are not regarded as pornography such as here, here, here]; even ancient Greek artists were depicting naked bathing women which they would put on jars and vases for everyday use such as this drawing. So I have trouble understanding objections raised for this particular drawing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please. If this is pornography, it's not very good at doing its job; it elicits laughter and ridicule instead of arousal. The drawing is about what you'd expect from an 8-year-old--that's what "childish" means. And if you've followed the WP discussion, you know that it doesn't accurately reflect what little historical descriptions that are extant. The trouble you're having understanding the objections are minuscule compared to the trouble I have understanding with why anybody would support it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. Wow. I teach figure drawing and painting in New York City, and after 35 years of working with the nude am about as acclimated to the subject as one would think possible. How many different ways can one say that from a purely technical standpoint this drawing is flat out poor? How does that not register? 99.0.80.70 16:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The criticism that "it's not very good at doing its job", or the drawing is "flat out poor" and a similar criticism by Binksternet in the nomination that the drawing is "poorly executed", presumes knowing the supposed aim of the drawing. It presumes, first, that the drawing has a job to do; second, it presumes that the three of you know what this particular job is. Suppose one did the drawing's "job" -- then perhaps one could determine whether it succeeded or failed at this task. Perhaps one could make such an argument about, for example, evaluating a work of craftsmanship such as a chair: if the job of a chair is to enable sitting, and if breaks, then it has failed at its job. But in this case, what is drawing's job, its purpose, its aim? I don't think any of us can say for sure what that purpose is. One might argue that much of art, itself, does not have a purpose; rather, art exists. So I do not see the objection on this basis. So, are the objections on the basis of taste? You may laugh at the drawing and ridicule its creator but I don't. To me, it is a drawing. Some may not like it; others may like it; as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even highly qualified art critics have disagreed; for example, much of the early work by French impressionists was initially criticized as unworthy. Judging on the basis of taste puts us in the awkward position of being what we are not -- art critics -- of having to decide what is good or bad or worthy or unworthy. It can lead to rather endless and unproductive battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to shift your arguments with the wind and your misunderstandings of my point and those of the others commenting here. If you don't know what pornography's job is, you have other problems that are irrelevant to this topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- That anyone would compare this drawing to a Cezanne, ancient Greek painting, or even use Impressionism in defense of the vicissitudes of taste speaks for itself. What I promise to do is send a link to this conversation to several artist friends and art editors, as an example of what's amiss with Wikipedia. 99.0.80.70 16:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well let's agree to disagree. Basically I do not see Wikimedia Commons as a clearinghouse for determining the basic competency of artwork; rather, Wikimedia Commons is an image repository. It keeps images. Art is evaluated elsewhere: art shows, galleries, magazine reviews, art buyers. At Wikimedia, uploaded images can stay provided basic rules are met, such as no copyright infringement, no photos of living people without their consent, and so forth. If people wish to delete this particular image, please show which rules have been broken. So far, I can not see any rules being broken.-Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The criticism that "it's not very good at doing its job", or the drawing is "flat out poor" and a similar criticism by Binksternet in the nomination that the drawing is "poorly executed", presumes knowing the supposed aim of the drawing. It presumes, first, that the drawing has a job to do; second, it presumes that the three of you know what this particular job is. Suppose one did the drawing's "job" -- then perhaps one could determine whether it succeeded or failed at this task. Perhaps one could make such an argument about, for example, evaluating a work of craftsmanship such as a chair: if the job of a chair is to enable sitting, and if breaks, then it has failed at its job. But in this case, what is drawing's job, its purpose, its aim? I don't think any of us can say for sure what that purpose is. One might argue that much of art, itself, does not have a purpose; rather, art exists. So I do not see the objection on this basis. So, are the objections on the basis of taste? You may laugh at the drawing and ridicule its creator but I don't. To me, it is a drawing. Some may not like it; others may like it; as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even highly qualified art critics have disagreed; for example, much of the early work by French impressionists was initially criticized as unworthy. Judging on the basis of taste puts us in the awkward position of being what we are not -- art critics -- of having to decide what is good or bad or worthy or unworthy. It can lead to rather endless and unproductive battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. Wow. I teach figure drawing and painting in New York City, and after 35 years of working with the nude am about as acclimated to the subject as one would think possible. How many different ways can one say that from a purely technical standpoint this drawing is flat out poor? How does that not register? 99.0.80.70 16:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please. If this is pornography, it's not very good at doing its job; it elicits laughter and ridicule instead of arousal. The drawing is about what you'd expect from an 8-year-old--that's what "childish" means. And if you've followed the WP discussion, you know that it doesn't accurately reflect what little historical descriptions that are extant. The trouble you're having understanding the objections are minuscule compared to the trouble I have understanding with why anybody would support it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. For those who have apparently missed the context, this image is meant to be a depiction of Naser al-Din Shah's slide, a device for sexual gratification that was supposedly used by the rulers of Persia starting around the late 18th century. The original research question was raised on the basis of whether or not the depiction can be considered an accurate rendering of the historical device. Dragons flight (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- If one supposed aim of the sketch is to depict an ancient device, and if it is believed that the sketch does not serve this purpose, then this is grounds for keeping it out of the Wikipedia article Naser al-Din Shah's slide. But it is not grounds from deleting it from Wikimedia. If there is a problem with the sketch's name -- such that it suggests an accurate representation -- then this is grounds for changing the sketch's name in Wikimedia. But there still is no case that I can see for deleting the image which requires someone to point out which rules have been violated, and I do not see any violations at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- So then it's OK with you if I post my granddaughter's finger paintings? Wikimedia is not a gallery for bad artists who can't afford their own web sites. That's the best reason I can think of. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- And please see Scope part 1: Files, Every file: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless you're writing an article on incompetent artists (which I doubt would pass notability requirements, the category encompassing most of humanity), this file is useless, just as I see a lot of yours are. Apparently you think Wikimedia is a social site and a file hosting site for every photo you take. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps what I find most troubling here, as suggested above, is the explicit belief that literary standards are expected and necessary, but that there are none for evaluating merit of a visual work. What's unclear is whether this reflects the opinion of a handful of contributors ('I'm not equipped to assess, so I presume nobody else is either'), or an as yet lack of criteria in the Commons guidelines. I do know the argument that a definitive judgment on such issues is impossible can't hold up, as such logic would hamstring any and all efforts across the encyclopedia. The ability to make structural and aesthetic distinctions is not only imperative, but implemented on Wikipedia thousands of times a day. 99.0.80.70 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the crux of the disagreement is whether the Commons is intended to be a repository for any and all images, or those that would be used only for other Wiki projects. If the former, this, a grandchild's fingerpaintings, and presumably most anything would be acceptable. If the latter, then there's a lot of, er, crap that can be reassessed. 99.0.80.70 17:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that COM:SCOPE is clear enough to disallow this image and most likely thousands more that are not in use. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addressing Tom Reedy's comments a bit back: Your first concern is about Wikimedia's overall quality, that including substandard images undermines the project and possibly makes all of us look substandard by association. If so, my point is that Wikimedia does not have a reputation for minimal quality. It should not have such a reputation. Judging artistic merit is not Wikimedia's mission; such judging happens elsewhere. Users will not think less of our contributions here if they come across dubious art. I respect your contributions here; I believe others do too. Users understand that quality varies from fine paintings by French impressionists to kids finger painting art such as this or this or this or this or this or potential uploaded fingerpaintings by your granddaughter. Rather, Wikimedia is an image repository.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that COM:SCOPE is clear enough to disallow this image and most likely thousands more that are not in use. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the crux of the disagreement is whether the Commons is intended to be a repository for any and all images, or those that would be used only for other Wiki projects. If the former, this, a grandchild's fingerpaintings, and presumably most anything would be acceptable. If the latter, then there's a lot of, er, crap that can be reassessed. 99.0.80.70 17:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps what I find most troubling here, as suggested above, is the explicit belief that literary standards are expected and necessary, but that there are none for evaluating merit of a visual work. What's unclear is whether this reflects the opinion of a handful of contributors ('I'm not equipped to assess, so I presume nobody else is either'), or an as yet lack of criteria in the Commons guidelines. I do know the argument that a definitive judgment on such issues is impossible can't hold up, as such logic would hamstring any and all efforts across the encyclopedia. The ability to make structural and aesthetic distinctions is not only imperative, but implemented on Wikipedia thousands of times a day. 99.0.80.70 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- If one supposed aim of the sketch is to depict an ancient device, and if it is believed that the sketch does not serve this purpose, then this is grounds for keeping it out of the Wikipedia article Naser al-Din Shah's slide. But it is not grounds from deleting it from Wikimedia. If there is a problem with the sketch's name -- such that it suggests an accurate representation -- then this is grounds for changing the sketch's name in Wikimedia. But there still is no case that I can see for deleting the image which requires someone to point out which rules have been violated, and I do not see any violations at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your second concern is that this particular image violates the rule that "every file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." I could see this sketch as being possibly useful for demonstrating slides, nude women, fun, sexual openness, nude women, Persian history, harems, and such. For example, I did not know that Persian kings used such slides in their harems; this is a factoid which may come in handy at a future cocktail party I might attend. I can see possible realistic purposes here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In fact, they did not. That is one of the main objections to this image: It appears to be a 10-year-old boy's Disny fantasy of what such a slide looked like. It has no basis in reality, hence the initial OR objection. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- About my contributions: many have been used extensively in Wikipedia; a few have been used outside Wikipedia by newspapers such as the New Brunswick Times or Cornell Examiner or used in websites about bathroom repairs; others are admittedly less useful; but all my uploaded images try to follow Wikimedia's rules. I do not understand your comment about "social site". I believe it is hard for any of us to know in advance which images will be useful for which purposes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Photographic portraiture” does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images (see also Censorship).
Please note the emphasis on quality in the last graf. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per an image serving an educational purpose: absolutely, if one can offer a drawing of better than remedial quality. This one most assuredly does not improve the article, or hypothetically, any of the others proposed above. I'd guess that you would not submit a similarly amateurish photograph here or elsewhere for use. My takeaway here is that the contributions of someone who may be experienced in this field, and who has written numerous articles on the painting of the nude, both for Wikipedia and for publication, are patently useless here. 99.0.80.70 18:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe this particular sketch could be deleted on the basis of it being unnecessary since a bigger version of this same sketch exists.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Why is this even worth discussing? No encyclopaedia is the better for having this item and none is the worse for removing it. Why does one even need to look at policy to take out the trash? Timtrent (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Out of sheer disbelief over the persistence of this discussion I asked Jimbo Wales for his thoughts re: policy, and received a response which referred to this specific image [5]. 99.0.80.70 18:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Naser_al-Din_Shah_slide_1.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete This Image doesn't have any reference and is just fictional stuff, you can not put your imaginations in history. (if even sth like this existed!!!). Pouyana (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. It does refer to a specific subject [6]. But among other faults, the presentation is poorly imagined as well as executed. 99.0.80.70 19:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep switching to Delete as per JimboWales comment, out of respect for the project's founder, as well as the totality of comments by contributors here who probably know much more about art than me, as well as the argument about a file not realistically being in use. For these reasons, plus perusing other rules based on Wikimedia's scope, then perhaps a case could be made that this image does not serve a realistic educational purpose.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a conversation about all such entries. What, for example, is the purpose of these uploads? It appears to be a gallery of drawings by an amateur artist who has no other venue. In fact, it appears that WM is full of pages of people who don't want to pay to store files. I daresay getting rid of these useless pages would free up several servers. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, mainly for the reasons given by Tom. I agree that competence is not something we can easily judge because it depends on issues of genre and stylistic convention. I actually find the image highly amusing in a cartoonish fashion, though I think only the full original file shows us the artist's true visionary genius. Joking aside, it should not matter even if it really were the greatest masterpiece of modern art. Commons is not supposed to here to provide a space for artists to showcase their creativity. It so happens that I have reacently been involved in another discussion about OR in images, concerning this image File:British Israelism 2.jpg which the creator is keen to have on the en:wikipedia page "British Israelism" [7]. We need to have a debate about what constitutes OR in images and what the role of original art - if any - can be here. Paul Barlow (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree. I think earlier I had been thinking of the sketch as a photo, but now based on the arguments above it seems that what the community is saying is that sketches/drawings/artwork require more stringent tests. We don't want a would-be nonfamous artist to create an original artwork, post it here first, and then misuse Wikimedia as a platform to launch an artistic career. I think we agree that this is unwanted since it is sort of like advertising in a way. Wikimedia should be about reflecting what has already happened in the world, not about creating new content. These issues are difficult to grasp and applying these rules can be tough. Still, I think the rules need to be written more clearly ward off future misunderstandings. If an artwork is uploaded by a nonfamous artist without a readily apparent and realistic educational purpose, then it seems right to delete such material. Perhaps uploads by contributors of their own work need more careful attention than uploads by people of other peoples work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't have an "art or not" committee; we preserve far less artful things than this - icons, Wiki fun, conceptual illustrations made on the fly for some talk page or Refdesk discussion. This one has an educational purpose that puts it well within the scope of the project. Wnt (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment No vote as it may be viewed as a !vote in response to the mention on Jimbo's talk page. But IMHO this is not a very useful addition to Commons.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Original research, fabrication of ahistorical details, childish sketch of poor quality. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Sketch is of adequate quality to be illustrative; seems more prurient than "childish". The question on whether to delete should be if it is actually useful within project scope. Image is apparently currently in use in fa:W (which language I do not know how to read) - any comment/context from fa literate Wikimedians? -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not used in any article on w:fa: right now. The pages that you're seeing listed are that Wikipedia's featured picture nominations. The picture isn't receiving much support. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Original research discussion is ongoing here and its about to keep or remove image in the article. Other reasons are more likely because of grudge. But even if it was really true, can I see where is the commons rule says images which are not high quality should be deleted? Monfie (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong delete Really? This image has no encyclopedic use whatsoever. Moreover it's completely inappropriate for this environment. Jesse V. (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete See above discussion and comment from Jimbo Wales. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Why is this even worth discussing? No encyclopaedia is the better for having this item and none is the worse for removing it. Why does one even need to look at policy to take out the trash? (If it's worth saying once t is most assuredly worth saying twice) Timtrent (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It's very entertaining in a daft way, but, sadly, not encyclopedic. Paul Barlow (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see any encyclopedic value in this image and I have yet to see an argument in this discussion that shows the image is encyclopedic. Commons is meant to be a repository of encyclopedic images, not of every image in existence that someone feels like drawing just because. Silverseren5 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use (it can actually induce false information). -- Dalba 4 Azar 1391/ 05:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wait It is apparently in use on the Persian Wikipedia. So, Persian readers are needed to tell us what it used for and why. Jimbo and others above have not addressed the Persian use, so while it is being used there, this discussion seems premature. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- See comment by User:Uncle G above. Checking with machine translation confirms desciption. Image is not used in fa:W article space, only an attempt to nominate it as a featured picture. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Dubious speculative image; not useful for project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Continued discussion
[edit]
Note: I have put the two DRs of the two versions together, as I think it's safe to say that what's an argument for one is an argument for the other. Please add comments below. However, bear in mind the following:
- Commons does not care about original research;
- Commons does not exist just to serve Wikimedia projects, if there is any educational use possible then the image is within scope;
- Commons is not censored;
- Bad quality is only an argument for deletion if the image is either unusably bad, or bad but we have a significant stock of better images of the same thing.
- Delete for the reasons I expressed above. Is this necessary? Does this have to be discussed all over again? Why not just take the measure of the above discussions and delete the images? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Jimbo's comments, not worth keeping.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There's a third version (without the Shah) here: File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 2.jpg --Avenue (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment We are told "Commons does not care about original research". Well, if's that's the case what's to stop me uploading my own drawing of Adolf Hitler being received into heaven, or, for that matter, a diagram illustrating from made-up population statistics that the Holocaust never happened? Do we really want Commons to host such images to be visible everywhere? If there is no such policy than there darn well should be. The only educational use of this image that I can think of is as evidence of the minds of horny teenagers. But by that logic an image is evidence some aspect of the mind of the person who created it. Paul Barlow (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept - as I stated when I joined the two discussions together, there are four issues which need to be taken into account when evaluating deletion votes here:
- Commons does not care about original research;
- Commons does not exist just to serve Wikimedia projects, if there is any educational use possible then the image is within scope;
- Commons is not censored;
- Bad quality is only an argument for deletion if the image is either unusably bad, or bad but we have a significant stock of better images of the same thing.
To respond to Paul Barlow, no, we do not care about original research, nor should we. If something is fictitious, that doesn't mean we shouldn't host it. Besides, what counts as "original research" for images anyway? I grant you, the image in question is not very good. I'm not sure how it would work, frankly it just looks painful for the Shah. But, it does give me some idea of what might be going on, and in that it is at least somewhat educational. Granted, it's not the sort of file en.wp would use, but Commons does not exist just to serve en.wp. Since we have no other images of the thing, I feel compelled to keep it on the grounds that we are not doing any harm to the project by keeping it (no issues over rights) and that it is at least of marginal educational value. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks very unlike own work to me, more like a publicity photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Dieses Bild ist das offizielle und aktuelle Foto von HOLGER MÜCK. Alle Rechte das Foto zu veröffentlichen liegen bei mir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.61.101 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Danke für das Hochladen des Fotos. Damit es auf Commons bleiben kann, braucht es nun noch die Bestätigung des Rechteinhabers, normalerweise des Fotographen, via OTRS. Das ist einfach: Einfach ein Mail an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org schicken, als Vorlage kann z.B. dieser Text verwendet werden. --129.132.146.194 16:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per OTRS permission. --Krd 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The photo was NOT created by the contributer (the IDF). יורם שורק (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Definitely doesn't look like a photo taken by the IDF. Constituent pieces of freely licensed works must also be freely licensed (unless de minimis). Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Please delete the Version from 9. Nov 2012 10:43. I've created and uploaded a new version today. 87.139.152.62 12:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo, Sie sollten dringend eine Mail an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org senden, um Ihre Urheberschaft zu belegen. Sonst wird das Bild gelöscht werden. --Wvk (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No orts permission, there is a flyers under copyright (year 2000) Paralacre (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Je ne parle que le français. J'ai créé cette affiche (conception et fabrication) pour une série de représentations de la pièce de Chiquet Mawet "Le Pape et la putain", en mars ou avril 1994, dans le cadre d'une campagne contre la venue du Pape Jean-Paul II en Belgique. Le dessin d'illustration est de Michel Barzin (le mari de l'auteure, Chiquet Mawet). Comme toutes mes créations, elle est libre de droits, en anglais : royalty-free. Merci. Utilisateur:Noelbabar (Discussion utilisateur:Noelbabar d) 19 novembre 2012 à 22:50 (CET)
- Bonjour,
- Ok pour la mise en page de l'affiche, mais il faut également l'autorisation de Michel Barzin avant que votre affiche ne soit réelelment entièrement libre de droit, celle-ci incorporant un travail qui lui est protégé par le droit d'auteur. --Dereckson (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- J'essaire de (re)prendre contact avec lui. Cordialement. User:Noelbabar 27 November 2012
- See also: File:Chiquet mawet 33.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- demande suppression car doublon avec File:Chiquet mawet 33.jpg (à conserver lui) User:Noelbabar 12 Décembre 2012
- Est-ce qu’il y a un ticket OTRS pour le dessin de Michel Barzin ? Je n’en vois pas la mention pour le fichier File:Chiquet mawet 33.jpg, donc si on supprime celui-ci on supprimera l’autre pour la même raison.
- Cordialement Paralacre (talk)
- Est-ce qu’il y a un ticket OTRS pour le dessin de Michel Barzin ? Je n’en vois pas la mention pour le fichier File:Chiquet mawet 33.jpg, donc si on supprime celui-ci on supprimera l’autre pour la même raison.
- demande suppression car doublon avec File:Chiquet mawet 33.jpg (à conserver lui) User:Noelbabar 12 Décembre 2012
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
1910 is not old enough to assume that the photographer had died by 1942. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Changed the license to another {{PD-Russia}}. "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication. Corporate body copyright has expired since the last 70 years from the publication of the work, and if the work was not published, - from the date of its creation." --Matti (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Paleogeography of North America during the late Campanian Stage of the Late Cretaceous.png
[edit]
The source says " the content of all PLOS journals is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, unless indicated otherwise." Unfortunately the footnote for this map leads to its source which has a clear copyright notice. This is not one of the maps from Ron Blakey for which we have permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- References are clear, the reader is led to Blakey's site, so Blakey's copyright is correct. NNW (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems a bit ambiguous. On one hand we have this:[8] On the other we have this:[9] So what is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The source says " the content of all PLOS journals is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, unless indicated otherwise." Unfortunately the footnote for this map leads to its source which has a clear copyright notice. This is not one of the maps from Ron Blakey for which we have permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's only the sea floor that remains from Blakey's original map but that is enough to keep his copyright. NNW (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a 1938 image. No reason is given why it is PD. IN order for that to be correct, the photographer would have had to die by 1942. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
All the testamentery heirs declare that the pictures of F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven are in the meantime without any copyright claims even it seems to be not! --Deklamat (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unless one of the heirs is a copyright lawyer, or otherwise skilled in copyright matters, it is very unlikely they know what the status of the copyright actually is. The copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer, so that the heirs cannot give the necessary permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The author ([10])of this picture is the nephew of Zeylmans van E. The source of this photograph in question is his private photo album. I think everything is correct. Please leave it.--Trannyl (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's true normaly the copyright belongs to the photographer but F.W. Z.v.E. payed the Photorapher to became the copyrights of it. The Contract ist lost but since that time there where never Problems about this agreement between Photographer and the Family Z.v.E. (the Photo is allready published in books etc). --Deklamat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is anymor a Problem then I found this: "Für anonyme Werke bestimmt § 66 UrhG, dass das Urheberrecht bereits 70 Jahre nach der Erstveröffentlichung der Aufnahme erlischt (bzw. nach der Erstellung, falls das Werk 70 Jahre lang unveröffentlicht blieb) on Bilder deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist --Deklamat (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's true normaly the copyright belongs to the photographer but F.W. Z.v.E. payed the Photorapher to became the copyrights of it. The Contract ist lost but since that time there where never Problems about this agreement between Photographer and the Family Z.v.E. (the Photo is allready published in books etc). --Deklamat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The author ([10])of this picture is the nephew of Zeylmans van E. The source of this photograph in question is his private photo album. I think everything is correct. Please leave it.--Trannyl (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be good if the two of you would get your stories straight. Was the photographer the nephew or was it the professional who was paid? While our policy is to Assume Good Faith -- that is, too assume that users are speaking correctly -- when we get different stories that rapidly shifts the other way. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is properly licensed.
As for the anonymous works quote, that applies only to works that were actually published anonymously. The fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it an anonymous work. In order to rely on that portion of the law, you must prove that the photographer was never known, and that is impossible in the case of a studio portrait sold to the subject. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- @JIM OK I think I understand now the Problem. It was the first picture I upload and I did'nt have enough Information about the terms and conditions. Now I changed a bit te Information an conditions on the File. I am not sur, but I hope it solved a bit the difficulty. I had needed a coach for commons (german or dutch) as I have allready for the german and dutch WIKIS. Now I see (a bit late) their is a insurmountable difference between the real Sitution in NL and EU on one side and the provisions on wiki commons and laws on the other side. Their is nobody on earth who could uprise a copyright claim on this photography. Neighther their was one for all the other pictures of Z.v.E. who are in the mean time published. Nobody can show the evidence, nobody verify the contretary. It is an unprovable Situation. All familymembers who could verify the things I affirm, died in the meantime. We prefer to leave the diskussion open as it is, otherwise if you can’t agree with it. I’ll delete the picture by myself immidiatly from WIKI COMMONS. (would be verry, verry pitty but I ‚ll understand your different view as ADMIN of Commons. (I think it's better for my account if I do it by myself!!)Sorry (I hope you aplogy me) for all the complications and missunderstandig I've made to you as a newcomer on commons --Deklamat (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your frustration here. Commons, and the copyright rules that go along with it, can be very difficult for a new contributor. It has been a few years since I first signed on here, but I well remember having to learn my way around. If I can be helpful, please do not hesitate to let me know.
- Unfortunately we are quite strict about copyright. Unless the image is obviously Public Domain because of age or some other special rule, then we require a license from the photographer, even in situations where it is almost certain that no one will complain. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show beyond a significant doubt that the image is free to use. Please read COM:PRP which sets forth the standard which we use.. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- @ JIM: Dear JIM thanks for the fast reaction I can't see what you mean with PRP (red) and you did'nt say if I have to delete the picture now. That you'll help me in the future is verry kind and I thank you in advance! What was happend with my talk page and user Page ? now it's suddenly complete white again. I hope I'm not blocked on commons? --Deklamat (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- PS Now suddenly I can see the "Babel again on the Userpage and the things on "talk" --Deklamat (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:PRP -- sorry about the typo. You cannot delete the picture. The Administrator who closes this will delete it if he or she decides that deletion is appropriate. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- After reading COM:PRP my not authoritative opinion {the authoritative opinion belongs to the admins and OTRS-Teams) is:
- there is not a significant doubt about the freedom of the file: F.W.Z.v.E (only a little).
- The copyright owner (if there exists one at all without Deklamat) to have sue allready if he did n't agree with the lot of publication of this and other photos of F.W. Z.v.E.
- The last copyright owner for myself of things that belongs to F.W. Z.v.E. was my father J.E. Z.v.E.. As bookseller and publisher he know all the rights about copies and decided till his dead all for F.W. Z.v.E. (also photografies] by himself!
- If their would be a chance to find out the photographer or his heirs, I would n't save effort and pain to find out and ask them. But after Worldwar II and the lot of destroyed things in EU it's impossible.
- so I ask in this verry special case to temper justice with mercy!!
- With kind regards and a still hope for a positive dicision: --Deklamat (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- After reading COM:PRP my not authoritative opinion {the authoritative opinion belongs to the admins and OTRS-Teams) is:
- Keep as per above. Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep--Trannyl (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- AS I have said several times, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs, not to the subject or his heirs, so the family cannot license this. The argument that the photographer is not going to sue is explicitly rejected by COM:PRP. It is too bad that we can't keep this orphan image, but we cannot keep most such images. That's the law and our policy. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I ask for patience. Yesterday I wrote Zeylmans van Emmichoven Archiv in Arlesheim Svizzera, as well kulturimpuls.org today the anthropsophical society Netherlands and ask them about the copyright, probably they have the licence of the photos. I'll inform at this page as soon as I become ansers of this three Institutions! --Deklamat (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- AS I have said several times, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs, not to the subject or his heirs, so the family cannot license this. The argument that the photographer is not going to sue is explicitly rejected by COM:PRP. It is too bad that we can't keep this orphan image, but we cannot keep most such images. That's the law and our policy. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Preliminary Report
[edit]
kulturimpuls.org Became the licence to publish the photo from Emanuel Zeylmans van Emmichoven the sun of Frederik Willem who published 1979 the biography of his father wit this photography on the first page. Mrs. Pörksen of the Zeylmans van Emmichoven Archiv wrote that this wasn't maked 1937 or 1938 but allready in 1929 or 1930. It was a Foto in Relation to the "Kamp de Stakenberg" -See further Information on kulturimpuls.org or "The antroposphical youth- and studentswork between 1920 and 1931". It seems in all probability an published orphan work since 1930 (83 years ago). I am still searching to become evident Information about it. --Deklamat (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Still again. There are many orphan works which we cannot keep. For countries where the rule is 70 years pma, our rule of thumb is that a work must be 130 years old before we assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. While 83 years is a long time, the photographer would have to live only another 13 years for this to still be in copyright. He could easily have lived 60, 70, or even 80 years after making this photograph.
- There are only three serious possibilities to keep this image:
- You prove that the photographer chose to remain anonymous, something that is very rare and obviously not the case here
- You prove that the photographer died before 1942 (soon to be 1943)
- You obtain the consent of the photographer or his heirs, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wat' with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act? I thought that if I can show that the Photo in 1930 anonymiously is published now it's PD? I can't at the moment, but I still investigat my research in all directions, also in the three that Jim lists!. An other possibility is, that the author declared, that F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven and after he / she died / or E. Zeylmans van Emmichoven became the copyright as heir of the author. The problem: the Research will probably take serveral months. But you see, I take the votes of Jim verry seriously! --Deklamat (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep / Reason: In according to: URAA then it is a public orphan work since 1929 (Newsletter in preparation for “Kamp de Stakenberg”). Second public oprhan publication: WorlCat:Willem Zeylmans van Emmichoven : ein Pionier der Anthroposophie Site 3 at: 17. November 1979. --Deklamat (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Keep
- Again, in order to make that argument you must prove that the photographer chose to be anonymous, something that is very unusual. "Anonymous" does not apply simply because the image is an orphan, or we do not know who the photographer was. It only applies if the photographer chose it deliberately.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me Jim but your Arguments are now a bit strange. I can't ask an anonumous photographer: "Was this picture in the newsletter from 1929 in preparation to "Kamp de Stakenberg" (in august 1930) deliberatly anonymously published or not?" Even I can't ask J.E. Zeylmans van Emmichoven († 8.july 2008):"Did you published this photo in the biography of your Father in 1979 deliberatly anonumously in contrast to all the other photographies in the same book or not?" But probably I do n't understand your arguments verry well in course of my verry elementary english. --Deklamat (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
[edit]
Keep! After all my firm conviction is in accord with the rules of WIKIMEDIA COMMONS Keep! --Deklamat (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as we cannot sure that this photograph is in the public domain. The copyright status is still uncertain as we do not know anything about the photographer. Please consider that this photograph was apparently published first in 1979 at a time where we can be sure that it was still copyright protected. This means that according to Dutch and German copyright law we have to wait until 2050 to be sure that this picture is in the public domain unless the photographer becames known. Please note that we are far more strict in this regard as common publishers who happily settle this in case of the unlikely event that a copyright holder surfaces. Please note also that the payment of a photographer does not imply a transfer of the copyright. This is unusual and usually requires a contract. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)