Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
If it actually is a penis of a fourteen-year-old (as the filename and description suggests), it should be deleted as child pornography. If not, it should be deleted because it is out of scope per COM:PENIS. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope being a child penis and also out of scope if not. Béria Lima msg 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A photograph of Osama bin Laden. Very unlikely to be the original work of User:Theindian47... —Tom Morris (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear case. Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Also:
- File:Big city guide2.jpg
- File:Big city guide3.jpg
- File:Big city guide4.jpg
- File:Big city guide5.jpg
- File:Big city guide6.jpg
- File:Big city guide7.jpg
- File:Big city guide8.jpg
- File:Big city guide9.jpg
- File:Big city guide10.jpg
These files comprise a guide to a shopping center in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Without some kind of notice sent to OTRS, I don't believe these are licensed under the Free Art License. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio, if a OTRS is provided it can always be restored. Béria Lima msg 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader claimed the pic as his own work, but the photograph looks like a scan from a magazine page (look at the folds in the upper half of the photo); plus the blurring and the bad quality of the image lead to the supposition of a manual scan from a paper source SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I already explained somewhere that I took this picture during a conference of Marija Pavlović at PalaDesio. The backgroud was there in the scenography of the conference. I also know that the quality of the image is not so good, but you have to remember that I was far a way from her... so I have to use a huge zoom. If you do not belive that, just give a look on the details of the image. Similar backgroud you ll find in some other examples acquired in the same conference:
.jpg){kind=link}
![17 File:"Welcome to Mount Morris PA" Sign.JPG](#File:"Welcome_to_Mount_Morris_PA"_Sign.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--Llorenzi (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember anything because I never knew anything about that subject before :-) Anyway, just in order to prevent future complaints please specify on the description page of each photograph the reason for its poor quality. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: After further explanation provided by the uploader SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This particular variant of the Alfred E. Neuman image is probably copyright of MAD Magazine, which was first published in the USA in 1952, so is likely to still be in copyright. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
We already have a large number of images of penises releasing pre-ejaculate in Category:Pre-ejaculate. This is a low-quality, out of focus image and therefore out-of-scope. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I found other images uploaded by this uploader from this flickr account...but I cannot find a source for this image. Maybe someone can find this image. If not, it will have to be deleted sadly. Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: source found Denniss (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The metadata indicates that the photo was taken in 1958, not in 1948 as originally thought. Therefore the pic is not in the public domain in India after all. I have restored the copy we had on en.wiki for fair use in one article. Diannaa (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- DELETE: As the uploader, it was a mistake not to have cross-checked with the metadata and simply go by the title. Sorry, Lovy Singhal (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Previously published - even in lower res - via (example) http://www.sistemapoliedro.com.br/noticias%5C2010%5Cmaterias%5Caniversario_sao_jose.htm (2010, .jpg) or http://www.saojosedoscampos.com.br/class-cidades/index.php?id=40837&cat=14 (© Copyright 2005, .jpg, last modified: 2010)]. Gunnex (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
image uploaded specifically for use in vanity (hoax?) page deleted off enwiki in 2009 DS (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Black and white image of a mouse. Within project scope. No evidence provided that the image is a copvio. --Bob247 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rat, actually. DS (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scope dubious, per Commons:Scope#Examples- personal photo, unused, and includes link to a website which, although 404, is promotional. Also, no permission from subject. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Strangely enough, Commons has incredibly few modern and non-sexual photographs of people showing off garters. The sad fact, is that Commons has even fewer photographs of happy confident Trans people going about their lives, unless the images are dubiously sexual or solo photos of people in their bedrooms. This probably makes it worth a double check as to educational value compared to the rest. With regards to permission, this was from the subject's own Flickrstream with the same verified licence; writing to the Flickrstream owner about their release of their own photograph when we have already used the correct licence at the source, seems redundant.
- I have removed the website link, however I could have replaced it with the archived version from 2011 which was just a collection of photos rather than promotional. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The whole licensing thing worries me somewhat- although the subject may give permission according to personality rights, the copyright must be that of the photographer, which (since this is clearly a social situation) is almost certainly not the subject. So how do we know that the subject of this image is able to release it under the cited licence? Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a question I will be happy to take to the Flickrstream owner, on the assumption that this is not a camera on a self-timer. However I believe that is a weak deletion argument considering the exact same camera can be seen in the EXIF data in the self-photo File:Bovered?? (158108027).jpg, so the answer is doubtless that Super Rabbit One took their own camera to the party and got someone else to photograph them having a fun time. Had this photograph not had an apparent trans-person as the subject, I doubt we would be looking at such detail to find rather thin reasons to delete. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The whole licensing thing worries me somewhat- although the subject may give permission according to personality rights, the copyright must be that of the photographer, which (since this is clearly a social situation) is almost certainly not the subject. So how do we know that the subject of this image is able to release it under the cited licence? Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The above email might help; but my nomination is more concerned with policy than subject matter, I should point out, and you shouldn't be making any assumptions about me whatsoever. Whereas we have "categories for discussion", we have "images for deletion"- and I am perfectly able to work within that apparent anomaly and will accept the consensus resulting from my nomination, as should you. It's nothing personal and should not be made so. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies if it reads that way, it's not my intention. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per Fæ. INeverCry 00:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
For Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara McClintock at C.S.H. 1947.jpg Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Abusive flickrwashing. Uploader Emiliya 1998 (talk · contribs) uploaded it to flickr and Commons the same day to make it look clean. But the file was at www.rasanews.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=124791 (deeplink) before. Martin H. (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Compilation of copyvios. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The file is listed as being in the public domain because it was taken by an employee of the US Government (Federal) and it is actually sourced to Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction which would be the work of a state government and therefore this image would not be considered PD US Gov. Cannot find any source from Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction releasing images under PD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not covered by freedom of panorama and it there is no indication given that this could be from 1977 or earlier and without copyright notice etc. AFBorchert (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
![05:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/03#c-AFBorchert-2012-12-03T05:59:00.000Z-File:"Welcome_to_Mount_Morris_PA"_Sign.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
![00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/03#c-INeverCry-2012-12-10T00:14:00.000Z-File:"Welcome_to_Mount_Morris_PA"_Sign.JPG){kind=link}
This image is not necessarily in the public domain. It still bares classification markings. While FOUO is technically unclassified, its distribution may be restricted. Furthermore, hosting such an image could potentially violate export laws regarding technical military data. 74.214.61.173 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- This technical information is not secret. The document itself can be, but I note that I found on the blog dedicated to the defense of a French regional newspaper in which he took the information on a site of an American newspaper. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 07:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
this page is already deleted so need to remain this photo on web. 117.204.181.174 07:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I never saw any issues with this file before I transferred it to Commons. Not sure what the deletion rationale is. -Gump Stump (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Bunder Project page is already deleted so need to remain this photo on web. 117.204.181.174 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unsure of the educational value of this image. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bunder Project page is already deleted so need to remain this photo on web. 117.204.181.174 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the designer was deceased before 1945. The chapel was somewhat redesigned in 2005.[1] Eleassar (t/p) 07:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The monument is actually not located in Avče, but in Modrejce. There is no information about who was the designer and if he died before 1945. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
A modern building, no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 07:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Greece. JuTa 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board. Eleassar (t/p) 07:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board, no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 07:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete And delete File:Zgodovina Lipniškega gradu.JPG as well. Both are copyvios: based on the printing technology used, the creator of the information boards didn't die before 1945, therefore no freedom of panorama. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Both tables were erected in 2004.[2] --Eleassar (t/p) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Come on, it is just an information board, created by humble people who weren't even put their names on it. Let it be there.--Irena Plahuta (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which makes absolutely no difference to the copyright status of the image. Under the Berne Convention, the copyright in the text is granted to the authors automatically. This is a clear derivative work. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the people are humble and this is "just an information board" (well, granted, it isn't Sydney Opera), this does not mean yet that some professor (or anyone else) can stripe them of their rights, take their work, present it as his own and give everyone the license to use it at will for any purpose, as long as he is credited as the author. It's like stealing someone's property to make benefits for oneself. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- KeepTaking a photo of textual information on a public place means that a photographer claims he is the author of the text? What a pervert interpretation! To be consistent, you should delete thousands of information boards in this category, which would be insane. --Hladnikm (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant. The authorship claim of the photograph doesn't matter. The lack of freedom-of-panorama in Slovenia is what makes it a copyright violation. Insane or not, that's the law. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the people are humble and this is "just an information board" (well, granted, it isn't Sydney Opera), this does not mean yet that some professor (or anyone else) can stripe them of their rights, take their work, present it as his own and give everyone the license to use it at will for any purpose, as long as he is credited as the author. It's like stealing someone's property to make benefits for oneself. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep We can asume the author is anonymous (therefore PD-Europe), as no explicit copyright notice (required by law) is visible. --Miha (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- We can't (see the link above). The copyright notice is not required by law. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ich habe das Gemälde im Vatikanischen Museum Rom fotografiert. Es handelte sich hier lediglich um eine Übung zum hochladen von Bildern. Deshalb: bitte löschen Stgallensis (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This architecture was built in the first half of the 20th century, and there is no evidence that the architect would have died before 1945. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 09:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Category:Paracetamol, e.g. File:N-Acetyl-p-aminophenol.svg. Leyo 09:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it amazing how the perception of "good" and "poor" quality can change over the years ;-) ? Rob Hooft (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. :-) The quality was surely fine eight years ago. --Leyo 09:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Category:Ibuprofen. Leyo 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This emblem is a product of Mississippi Valley Council, Boy Scouts of America, thus copyrighted by them. A variant of this emblem exists on the English Wikipedia and is properly licensed. Gadget850 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I find it at least doubtful, that it's an "own work". The photograph can be found here and there (e.g. [3]) without authorship information Filip em (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Japan: This is a sculpture/model, not a building. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission to the current picture of March 13, 2012 Odessey (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
watermarked to someone other than uploader, no evidence of being free DMacks (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This signboard is in India. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jameslwoodward, thanks for keeping a watch on this. May i know the reason for deletion? This will help me to avoid similar errors in the future.--Challengethelimits (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- As it says at the Deletion Request, the signboard itself has a copyright, so that photographing it and publishing the image is very much like copying a book and then publishing it -- in both cases you are infringing on the creator's rights. In a few countries, it is OK to photograph signboards that are on public display, but not in India. You can read more about this, and about what is permitted in India at COM:FOP. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes James, but I created (redrew) it using Adobe illustrator and tweeked the image a bit . Is that not fair enough?--223.233.71.143 14:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)--Challengethelimits (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe. First, this discussion should take place at the DR, not here. Second, you should have said that you drew it yourself in the description. If this is a brand new creation out of your mind, from your knowledge of the zoo, then it is OK. If, on the other hand, you drew it in Adobe Illustrator with a photograph of a zoo signboard in front of you, then it is a Derivative Work and not OK. In between those two is a gray area, but "redrew it ... and tweeked the image a bit" sounds like a DW, not original work. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This signboard is in Inda. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
======= Is there any violation of Copy right? This photograph was taken by me. I have the source of this image.
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This signboard is in India. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This signboard is in India. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not getting your point. This is just a sign board! and I took this Photo in person. Pleas explain where this violates the Copy right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.163.219 (talk • contribs)
- Please read Commons:FOP#India. It is allowed to photograph buildings and other 3D objects in India but not 2D objects like signboards. NNW (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a website. Rapsar (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's my own file. I'm the photograph. No raison to delete this file. Guiguibass 11:31, 5 December 2012
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Giancarlo Maroni, the architect author of this monument, died in 1952. Unfortunately, there is no FoP in Italy. I'm afraid this picture is a derivative work of a stil copyrighted monument, and therefore should be deleted from "Commons", I'm sorry Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 13:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 13:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
When I uploaded this I thought that its copyright would be based on the photographs, which are dominant. I'm not too sure now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
De eigenaar van het pand heeft mij benaderd en wil niet dat er fotos van zijn eigendom op het internet circuleren. Trashin.tieske (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The facebook page specified as the source and license verification does not contain any release of copyright. 89.238.233.210 15:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
no fop in france FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand were the problem is. Am i, or NOT, the possibility to make photographies in France and to upload it in Commons? And if not, WHY ? --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is only with artwork that was created by people who are living or died less than 70 years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Protection according to the french law is determined by originality. I ain't sure if a(n) (exact) replica of a estingished animal can be granted protection here. Esby (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- First, that sure isn't an exact replica. Second, sculptures that are "exact replicas" of anything are still sculptures, thus protected art. Casts are another matter though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't agree on the second part. An exact replica means a copy. It's not original in itself and is not eligible to 'droits d'auteur' (the equivalent to copyright in the french law). The french law does not take in consideration the work that was needed to perform the copy it only takes the originality in account here. Now it's true that unfree photographies of public domain sculptures are not subject to PD-Art policy because there is originality in the 2D photography... Esby (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- So tell me, just as an example, is this sculpture not eligible for copyright?[4] It is pretty much an "exact replica" of a human, right? Or these deer?[5] I don't think you'd find anyone who would argue that. And in the case of the mammoth sculpture here, even more artistic license has been taken, since no one knows exactly what a live mammoth looked like. The most complete known head is this one[6], and I don't see a resemblance. In fact, the sculpture has many anatomical inaccuracies (proportions, posture), which must be attributed to artistic license. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- May be I'm wrong, but a prehistoric animal (or man) reconstitution isn't, I think, an art work (sculpture) from an unique artist, but a scientific artefact by a museologic team, as Fichier:Bałtów Park Jurajski 001.jpg on [7]... Friendly, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- A sculpture is a sculpture, whether it was made by a team or an individual, based on science, imagination, or both. Sculptures are art per definition. And reconstructions of extinct animals always require a lot of imagination, since only incomplete specimens are known. The sculpture in Poland is fine, since there is "freedom of panorama" there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This sculpture is a reproduction of a XII century sculpture. There is no originality: It is not protected by the 'droit d'auteur'. If a scultpure is an exact replica of an animal, its construction (or reconstruction) can be seen as the result of physical (or scientist) constraint rather than the will of an artist: in such case, there is no originality and there is no protection granted. We are not in England in where works to create something equals copyright protection. Esby (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The two are not comparable, the mammoth sculpture is not an exact replica of anything. See my deer and boy sculpture analogies above. Would you consider them out of copyright? Pose, colour, proportions, and other anatomical features, are all guesswork and imagination in that mammoth sculpture, so it is even less of a "replica" than the aforementioned sculptures. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You were the one pretending that sculptures were protected because they were arts. I just gave you a counter argument. Here I don't know. We also lack information about this mammoth: when it was createn, by who etc. Esby (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is the only thing that could redeem it, if the author died more than 70 years ago. It seems a bit cartoonish in design, so I doubt it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if this facts can be helpful for the present discussion, but I worked some years as illustrator in the French national Museum of Natural History (MNHN, here: [8]) and the Toulon Museum of Natural History (here: [9]) and my creations became to this public institutions, not to me : my status never were an artistic creator one, I was a simple employee wage-earner. However, if FunkMonk is right, the consequences will be gigantic for Commons and Wikipedia, because all the thousands images of paleontologic reconstitutions (drawings as File:Daspletosaurus torDB.jpg on [10] or sculptures as File:Mammoth-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg in [11]) must be deleted... --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, because many countries do have freedom of panorama. I'm not sure what user created drawings have to do with this, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete until shown otherwise, the limit for copyright for sculpted works is the same as for novels or photographs. In France, you can not copy someone's sculpture, no matter how unoriginal, until said unoriginality reaches the level of simple copying. That is, if a sculptor actually creates a new work of art, it gets a new copyright. If the sculptor creates a cast of a previous work of art with no original input then this is simply a copy itself and does not gain copyright. What is required here though is the name of the sculptor as the 70 year rule will apply. I believe that this sculpture was created in the 1980's using actual fossil remains of a mammoth. Therefore, the sculpture itself passes the threshold or originality for copyright in France as it is not a cast of a previous work of art, and the creator has not been dead more than 70 years. For these reasons I believe that this photo should be deleted as France has no freedom of panorama exceptions. --Bob247 (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if this facts can be helpful for the present discussion, but I worked some years as illustrator in the French national Museum of Natural History (MNHN, here: [8]) and the Toulon Museum of Natural History (here: [9]) and my creations became to this public institutions, not to me : my status never were an artistic creator one, I was a simple employee wage-earner. However, if FunkMonk is right, the consequences will be gigantic for Commons and Wikipedia, because all the thousands images of paleontologic reconstitutions (drawings as File:Daspletosaurus torDB.jpg on [10] or sculptures as File:Mammoth-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg in [11]) must be deleted... --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is the only thing that could redeem it, if the author died more than 70 years ago. It seems a bit cartoonish in design, so I doubt it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You were the one pretending that sculptures were protected because they were arts. I just gave you a counter argument. Here I don't know. We also lack information about this mammoth: when it was createn, by who etc. Esby (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The two are not comparable, the mammoth sculpture is not an exact replica of anything. See my deer and boy sculpture analogies above. Would you consider them out of copyright? Pose, colour, proportions, and other anatomical features, are all guesswork and imagination in that mammoth sculpture, so it is even less of a "replica" than the aforementioned sculptures. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This sculpture is a reproduction of a XII century sculpture. There is no originality: It is not protected by the 'droit d'auteur'. If a scultpure is an exact replica of an animal, its construction (or reconstruction) can be seen as the result of physical (or scientist) constraint rather than the will of an artist: in such case, there is no originality and there is no protection granted. We are not in England in where works to create something equals copyright protection. Esby (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- A sculpture is a sculpture, whether it was made by a team or an individual, based on science, imagination, or both. Sculptures are art per definition. And reconstructions of extinct animals always require a lot of imagination, since only incomplete specimens are known. The sculpture in Poland is fine, since there is "freedom of panorama" there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- May be I'm wrong, but a prehistoric animal (or man) reconstitution isn't, I think, an art work (sculpture) from an unique artist, but a scientific artefact by a museologic team, as Fichier:Bałtów Park Jurajski 001.jpg on [7]... Friendly, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- So tell me, just as an example, is this sculpture not eligible for copyright?[4] It is pretty much an "exact replica" of a human, right? Or these deer?[5] I don't think you'd find anyone who would argue that. And in the case of the mammoth sculpture here, even more artistic license has been taken, since no one knows exactly what a live mammoth looked like. The most complete known head is this one[6], and I don't see a resemblance. In fact, the sculpture has many anatomical inaccuracies (proportions, posture), which must be attributed to artistic license. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't agree on the second part. An exact replica means a copy. It's not original in itself and is not eligible to 'droits d'auteur' (the equivalent to copyright in the french law). The french law does not take in consideration the work that was needed to perform the copy it only takes the originality in account here. Now it's true that unfree photographies of public domain sculptures are not subject to PD-Art policy because there is originality in the 2D photography... Esby (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- First, that sure isn't an exact replica. Second, sculptures that are "exact replicas" of anything are still sculptures, thus protected art. Casts are another matter though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.lifeofguangzhou.com/node_10/node_37/node_85/img/2009/09/22/125358528869802_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ba%C5%82t%C3%B3w_Park_Jurajski_001.jpg?uselang=fr){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daspletosaurus_torDB.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mammoth-ZOO.Dvur.Kralove.jpg?uselang=fr){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable website. Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a company. It consists more then simple geometric shapes and text. Rapsar (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright. Scan of journal and claiming that the license is free. I don't believe it Wouter (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Kuno Widmaier (1922-1980). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, mysterious border (scanned? source?) and a watermark problem (right bottom: "GAUAS" or "GAIJAS"?). Gunnex (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
From the online game Habbo Hotel; authorship claim thus rather unconvincing. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Per (updated) {{Attribution-PresidenciaBr}} e Template talk:Attribution-PresidenciaBr: "The terms of use ("termos de uso", see link above, changed in 04.07.2011) says: Interested user can reproduce text, images, videos and audios from the "Portal do Planalto" for journalistic use, since the source is cited. However, it is forbidden to sell, resell or commercially exploit any content of this website". Gunnex (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Outside COM:SCOPE: not educational or of any use to existing Wikimedia projects. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out-of-scope: "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" is 'excluded educational content'. Has no value above the raw text. This kind of thing should be on a blog, not on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
USAID often uses other people's images for their own purposes but that doesn't give us the right to use those particular images here. The author in this case is Paul Cruickshank [2] but there's no evidence that he worked for USAID. Officer (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio on the work by the architects (no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Reactant structure is incorrect, and the (former) use context (part of the File:Production of levetiracetam.png process) should have had an amide not an acid in the product (acid product is possible but the actual use of this image was uncited either). DMacks (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Incorrectly suggests P and Br2 are comparable roles in this process, but one is a catalyst and the other is a consumed stoichiometric reagent. Have balanced and correct alternative (in higher quality image format...bonus!) DMacks (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
some unknown person, see description, cropped from one poster, see ujploaders history Motopark (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 03:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This image is one of many images of boyscouts uploaded from Flickr by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe. The majority of the others were deleted by admin User:Russavia as the result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:S7301533 (6024774145).jpg. This image, however, has been cropped and renamed. In the closure of that deletion request, Russavia cited an email from the photograher, saying they "they do not want to have them hosted on Commons".
.jpg){kind=link}
I presume that someone will argue that there are no longer identifiable people in these images, but if we had simply cropped the heads off the topless boys in the other images, could we not have made the same argument? The photographer has stated that these were taken in a private place and should not be on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep My argument would be that, not only are there no identifiable persons in these images, but that the activities depicted are themselves the main subjects rather than any of the individual children participating in them. The other images mentioned, if I remember right, had as their main subjects the children themselves and included faces, and so the suggestion of altering/cropping them doesn't seem like it should have any bearing in regard to these 3. INeverCry 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing identifiable and useful as they depict activities we have few photos of.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per INeverCry. There are no identifiable people in the images and the subject is the activities not the people. And MaybeMaybeMaybe is right that its useful since we have few pictures of this. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Es un a prueba para publicar Fcojteran (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree backdrop. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
These are blurry and/or low-quality photographs of User:Skvat's penis. Their descriptions do not provide any useful information. Therefore, these files meet the criteria for deletion set forth at COM:PENIS. (File:Dansk tissemand.jpg is essentially a duplicate of File:Penis dk.jpg which is also nominated for deletion.)
Senator2029 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Dansk tissemand.jpg as a bit blurry but usable, Delete File:Tissemand DK.jpg and File:Penis dk.jpg. Former is unusably blurry, second is a worse quality duplicate of the one I want to keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Mattbuck; keep 1, delete 2. Infrogmation (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete at least the 2 suggested by Mattbuck and frankly any newish (2012) unused and unremarkable penis picture can go. So delete the 3rd as well. --Simonxag (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Dansk tissemand.jpg as pretty good quality, the rest are less useful. -- Cirt (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
2 gone, 1 kept --Denniss (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of scope of Commons. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Holy Trinity church, Odranci
[edit]Copyrighted architecture by Janez Valentinčič (1904-1994), built in 1947 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia).
- File:Cerkev sv. Trojice v Odrancih.JPG
- File:Cerkev sv. Trojice v Odrancih.jpg
- File:Cerkev sv. Trojice v Odrancih1.JPG
- File:Cerkev sv. Trojice, Odranci.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Later deleted:
- File:Odranci SLO Dreifaltigkeitskirche Richtung Osten.JPG
- File:Odranci SLO Dreifaltigkeitskirche Richtung Westen.JPG
--Eleassar (t/p) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kobilje municipality
[edit]No evidence that the designer of the church (built in 1926) was deceased until 1945; the chapel was built in 1991. See COM:FOP#Slovenia.
Eleassar (t/p) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- First you have to prove, that the author is known ... Apparently it is not, so according to the 11th and 61st article of the Slovene copyright law, the work is already in public domain. --Miha (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's an orphan work. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to keep the file. --Eleassar (t/p) 00:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ankaran
[edit]No reliable source stating that the two photos have been originally published anonymously or that the photographer had died before 1945. Additionally, the death year of the architect is unknown.
Eleassar (t/p) 07:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Trdkova
[edit]Built in the first half of the 20th century, no evidence that the creator died before 1945; see COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Kapela Trdkova Geopedija.jpg
- File:Kapela v Trdkovi R.jpg
- File:Kapela v Trdkovi.jpg
- File:Tromejnik.jpg
- File:Zvonik v Trdkovi.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
First you have to prove, that the author is known ... Apparently it is not, so according to the 11th and 61st article of the Slovene copyright law, the work is already in public domain. --Miha (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's an orphan work. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to keep the file. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ivan Vurnik
[edit]Work by Ivan Vurnik (1884-1971); no Commons-suitable FOP in Slovenia.
Eleassar (t/p) 09:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Additionally:
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Engineman_Jemaral_Weaver_reflects_at_the_Korean_War_Memorial_during_the_Annapolis_Area_Complex_prospective_Chief_Petty_Officers%5Ersquo,_Heritage_Run.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}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial 10
[edit]The sculptures here are under copyright.
- File:Korean War Veterans Memorial (de44327b-3a76-4ed4-9164-1de77c5a1f35).jpg
- File:Korean War Veterans Memorial (f99f3c3e-3ca8-47a2-8051-201508c359f9).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think I skipped nominating these on my last pass because there may be a weak case for DM, but I don't oppose deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- This one also extremely similar: File:Korean War Memorial at National Mall & Memorial Parks (4f0f6a20-27a2-45c0-b724-658c67d6e07c).jpg. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Delete per nom, all sections above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial 11
[edit]The statues at this memorial are unfortunately copyrighted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial.
- File:Korean War memorial (4949340990).jpg
- File:KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL.jpg
- File:George Washington Memorial Parkway - Korean War Veterans Memorial - NARA - 7718556.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
– BMacZero (🗩) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, all sections above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial 12
[edit]Derivative work copyright violations: there is no freedom of panorama in the United States, and these images lack permission from the heirs of the sculptors. File:Washington F2492 (7144738487).jpg is not de minimis as it is not trivial here: US de minimis is more restricted as it uses triviality concept. See also a court case Gaylord v. United States.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Korean War Memorial.tif
- File:Korean War-2.tif
- File:Southwest Washington, Washington, DC, USA - panoramio - iclifford.jpg
- File:TJB 1868-1.jpg
- File:Washington F2492 (7144738487).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, all sections above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 01:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial 13
[edit]Non-free sculptures, see previous discussions.
- File:Korean War Memorial Ceremony - 51195645501.jpg
- File:Korean War Memorial Ceremony - 51196701840.jpg
– BMacZero (🗩) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete all nominated images. See also: USA Today article (Gaylord v. United States conclusion, with the sculptor the victor). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- Speedy delete per nom, all sections above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Sennecaster (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: However, I must remind everyone that photos taken in a public place are not eligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial 14
[edit]These images show at least one of the soldier statues in a non-trivial manner. There is no freedom of panorama for copyrighted public art in the United States. This artwork is not freely-enjoyable: see Gaylord v. United States (USA Today article). Retention of these images will put American and even international reusers at risk of lawsuits from Gaylord's heirs!
- File:Korean War Memorial.jpg
- File:President George W. Bush and U.S. Park Ranger Lance Hatten Tour the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.jpg
- File:Soldier in the Korean War Veterans Memorial.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Trim the photo with president Bush, Delete the rest.—Molandfreak (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom, all sections above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and trim the one with Former President Bush. Sennecaster (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted 2 and trimmed 1 per nom. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
No longer valid since the retroactive 2008 law was published. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
2 copyvios identified today. The rest, per COM:PRP: unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF (except 1). High professional photos, mosty grabbed from an unsourced flash image gallery (see e.g. File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 11.21.59 AM.png = navigation elements visible and file name "Screen shot"). File:GRinverno2010.png seem to be mounted from unknown sources: 1 part circulating before upload date in http://casaalberto.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/casa-alberto-paetes-continuam-nesta-estacao/ = http://casaalberto.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/paete-2010.jpg (last modified: 05.2010).
- File:GRverao2010.png
- File:GRinverno2010.png
- File:Screen shot 2010-10-07 at 11.21.59 AM.png
- File:Verao2011.png
- File:Giuliana-4.jpeg
Gunnex (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The 6 picture files:
- File:ICEüberführungwildenrath.jpg
- File:ICEüberführungwildenrath-2.jpg
- File:ICEüberführungwildenrath-3.jpg
- File:ICEüberführungwildenrath-4.jpg
- File:ICEüberführungwildenrath-5.jpg
- File:ICE-Ueberfuehrungwildenrath-6.jpg
are all exactly the same; they only differ in color (hue and saturation). I feel 5 of the 6 versions should be deleted, maintaining only the best version (which I think is ICEüberführungwildenrath-5.jpg). Would be pleased to hear views. Loranchet (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept #5 per nom. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Debraparma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
new picture will beuploaded with updated info, file title is wrong Sherab1180 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
new picture will beuploaded with updated info, file title is wrong Sherab1180 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- When the title is wrong the file must renamed. Take Template:Rename.
I do it.Regards. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 18:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Do not upload a new version -- ask for a rename of this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
want to upload new picture Sherab1180 (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason. --McZusatz (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Esta duplicado 79.155.176.139 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate of what? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
According to en:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, this is from 1997, so it is not allowed in pictorial form until 70 years after the death of the creators. I assume that all inscriptions are {{PD-USGov}} and I left out a few photos of walls where I don't think that there is anything copyrightable.
- File:12072012 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 02.JPG
- File:12072012 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 04.tif
- File:12072012 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 05.jpg
- File:12072012 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 06.jpg
- File:12072012 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 07.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02394.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02395.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02396.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02397.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02398.JPG
- File:Buildings in Washington, D.C. 02399.JPG
- File:Eleanor Roosevelt statue.JPG
- File:ERoosevelt.jpg
- File:FDR and Companion.JPG
- File:FDR chair.jpg
- File:FDR disability wall.jpg
- File:FDR Large waterfall.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial 1.JPG
- File:FDR Memorial 2.JPG
- File:FDR Memorial 3.JPG
- File:FDR Memorial Bread Line.JPG
- File:FDR Memorial July 2010.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Mrs. Roosevelt.JPG
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 1.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 10.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 11.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 12.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 13.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 14.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 15.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 16.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 17.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 18.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 19.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 20.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 4.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 5.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 6.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 7.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 8.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial Wade 9.jpg
- File:FDR memorial waterfall panorama.jpg
- File:FDR memorial.jpg
- File:Fdr memorial.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial.jpg
- File:Fdr-memorial-first-lady.jpg
- File:Fdr-memorial-room2-pillar1.jpg
- File:Fdr-memorial-room2-wall-panel1.jpg
- File:Fdr-memorial-sculpture-couple.jpg
- File:Fdr-memorial-wheelchair-sculpture.jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 01 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 02 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 02.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 04 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 04.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 05 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 06 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 06.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 07 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 07.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 08 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 08.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 09 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 09.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 10 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 11 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 13 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 16 - July 2012.JPG
- File:Hands on the column.jpg
- File:New Deal Memorial.jpg
- File:Reich Roosevelt Statue.jpg
- File:Statues in a line.jpg
- File:The Breadline at the F.D.R. Memorial.JPG
- File:Waterfall at FDR Memorial 2005.jpg
- File:Waterfalls, FDR Memorial, Washington, D.C. IMG 4738.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did put some of those on there. If they violate the copyright law they have to go. I'm sure you've been working with copyright rules so undoubtedly you know better than I. Nothing else to be done! Thanks for pointing out this violation. I'm sure there are a lot of violations on Commons. Someone has to do it.Botteville (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa Nellie. I thought of something and this is more of a question than an objection. The photos are of public monuments. You mean, if I take a photo of a public monument I cannot publish it? If that is true then there sure are a lot of copyright violations in the world. Do you know about this for certain? Let's say a school class visits the White House and the teacher makes slides. According to you, he could not show the slides without permission from the government. If you could look this up and let me know, or if you know, I would appreciate an answer. Anyone else got anything to say? Let's not delete until this is resolved. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The White House is an ancient building, so it is in the public domain. Secondly, you are allowed to take photos of buildings (see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 120). However, this doesn't extend to sculptures. Works by the United States government are in the public domain, but works which are only sponsored by the United States government are not. See for example this article about a different memorial which appeared on a US postage stamps where the sculptor sued the US post and got lots of money as compensation. See also other interesting pages such as COM:FOP#United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa Nellie. I thought of something and this is more of a question than an objection. The photos are of public monuments. You mean, if I take a photo of a public monument I cannot publish it? If that is true then there sure are a lot of copyright violations in the world. Do you know about this for certain? Let's say a school class visits the White House and the teacher makes slides. According to you, he could not show the slides without permission from the government. If you could look this up and let me know, or if you know, I would appreciate an answer. Anyone else got anything to say? Let's not delete until this is resolved. Thanks.Botteville (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- If this violates copyright, feel free to remove mine. upstateNYer 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Lossless version in higher resolution is now available. Jahoe (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not routinely delete older versions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The logo is copyright to Norton. The image is so small as to be unusable for anything educational and thus outside of Commons' scope. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The logo of norton was created by me. I watched a logo of Norton Antivirus and made a logo with the help of Windows Picture Manager and Windows Paint. This image can be used in userboxes and used in (User:Pratyya Ghosh/Norton) & (User:Pratyya Ghosh/Norton-2). So this image is usable.--Pratyya Ghosh (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is still a copyvio, even in this size. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
lossless version is now available Jahoe (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose We do not delete images because a similar (and not even identical) image is now available in a different format. Especially not when the jpg is both clearer, unencumbered by captions, and a fifth of the file size. "Lossless" is a complete red herring. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Andy has it right. For most purposes the jpg version will be better. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
