Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![25 File:Bird Polyamory ("Roseate Trio Commemorative Door") (3593092689).jpg](#File:Bird_Polyamory_("Roseate_Trio_Commemorative_Door")_(3593092689).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![45 File:Exposition "Monuments, stars du 7ème art" (Conciergerie) (5235964604).jpg](#File:Exposition_"Monuments,_stars_du_7ème_art"_(Conciergerie)_(5235964604).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
en:Assos tells that the statue is "modern":
There ia a modern statue of Aristotle at the town entrance.
This may mean that the sculptor hasn't been dead for 70 years yet, as required per COM:FOP#Greece. Stefan4 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Assos is a Town in Turkey. So we have a different Law. Elelicht (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, sorry, I was confused by the Greek name in the lead and missed that it said that the town was in Turkey. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: My fault: I got the country wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Still from a video (http://www.hits-forever.de/news.php?rowstart=3); no evidence that uploader owns the original video. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Subject also claims to be photographer and copyright holder - given that this is clearly a promotional shot, that seems very unlikely. See also the previous deletion of a similar image. Yunshui (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete as poster Motopark (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission Kettymora (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission Kettymora (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission Kettymora (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission Kettymora (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
failed upload OrenBochman (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 15:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
delete|copyright, can't be your own work Nummer 12 (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- WHY NOT????? Now explain exactly why this can't be my own picture since I took it myself? Why would I as the photographer of this very picture not be the original copyright holder? What exactly are your grounds for thinking that I did not take this picture? Have you ever seen this picture anywhere else, and if so, who claimed to be the photographer (remember before you answer that I know exactly what newspaper and TV documentary that have actually paid me to use my picures of Desmond Llewelyn!)? Where do you think pictures comes from if not from professional photographers like me? Six very simple questions, I expect six separate good answers from you or you will look pretty f***ing stupid not asking me first where this picture came from before you decided it "can't be your work"! --Towpilot (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kept. I would like to thank Towpilot for all his valuable photographic contributions over the years. Thuresson (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Scope???? Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused low-quality photo of domesticated cat. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Collage of professionally produced images, no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of every one of the imaes. 216.93.234.239 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Orphan, file no longer in use on user page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doindo, file was previously located at Wikipedia files and requested deletion, bot has moved it to commons and deletion is being posted here 74.235.197.249 01:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
School logos are normally subject to copyright. I have taken a small version over to en.wiki for fair use. Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems fictitious, Google finds no evidence of anything meaningful called "Iraqan" or "Irakan", not used in WMF wikis, so out of scope This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems fictitious, Google finds no evidence of anything meaningful called "Iraqan" or "Irakan", not used in WMF wikis, so out of scope This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not a pic of Elephant Nature Park. It is of another location and misleading Elemanxx (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep There's a {{Fact disputed}} for exactly this. It looks to be a perfectly useful picture even if it isn't a picture of Elephant Nature Park.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Live-imaging-of-altered-period1-expression-in-the-suprachiasmatic-nuclei-of-Vipr2−−-mice1-jnc0106-1646-SD6.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but article page at journal does not mention anything about Creative Commons licensing, nor do the Terms and conditions. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The shop manual was likely under copyright. We hope (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader is the subject of an en.WP copyright investigation and has been blocked there for sockpuppetry. We hope (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Upper left has copyright for conceptcarz.com We hope (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, taken from [1]. MKFI (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Upper left corner has copyright for conceptcarz.com We hope (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, taken from [2]. MKFI (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Upper left corner has copyright for conceptcarz.com. We hope (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, taken from [3]. MKFI (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Can be found in some place on the Internet (e.g, Flickr uploader is unlikely to be the real author Morning ☼ (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - delete. --Santa saturnina (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Flickrwash --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Can be found in some place on the Internet (e.g), Flickr uploader is unlikely to be the real author Morning ☼ (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The Flickr account is verified through Murray Rankin's facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MurrayRankinMP/info --Foreen (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This photo is on Rankin's verified flikr account, but the other photo up for deletion is not.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_(3593092689).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3593092689).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Freedom of panorama in the US extends only to buildings, not artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![08:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/06#c-Mattbuck-2012-12-06T08:04:00.000Z-File:Bird_Polyamory_("Roseate_Trio_Commemorative_Door")_(3593092689).jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I saw this as simple stencil wall decoration rather than artwork, happy to see it deleted under the most conservative interpretation. By the way, Sapphireblue makes her own arts and crafts and photographs them herself (see http://www.sapphireblue.com/dangerousart/ as an example). Any copyright of her own crafts or artwork, is owned by the photographer and so is likely to be hers to release as she sees fit. However, in this case, the door seems to be one she came across on Great Gull Island rather than her own work, but the same conclusions about context need not apply to other images in her Flickrstream. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
![00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/06#c-INeverCry-2012-12-13T00:17:00.000Z-File:Bird_Polyamory_("Roseate_Trio_Commemorative_Door")_(3593092689).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
EXIF data say: (C) Philippe MARTIN and All rights reserved. Might be a Flickr-wasing account. Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work o art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account. Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Likely a recent statue and thereby still copyrighted. As it is located in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this image violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour Túrelio !
Il y avait longtemps que le panorama n'avait pas fait de victimes ... plus de François Truffaut donc !
@+
Daniel Villafruela (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that I understand you correctly, as Google-translation didn't really help me here. Anyway, it's not my fault that France has no freedom-of-panorama exemption. Find the sculptor and ask him for permission. IMO, that's the only solution. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The road map that was used as a base is obviously modern, hence a copyvio, and the "research" this displays is of unclear accuracy since the source is so generic as to be worthless. Constantine ✍ 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Background map is obviously not made by the uploader. The fine graphic of the map is inconsistent with the poor quality of the coloured dots. If it was a complete "own work" there wouldn't be names cut at the edges of the map. NNW (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Who said that the road map of greece is old and my map ? This map is used only to see closer the settlements in that region wich in other way we can not see so close because other mapa data are so basic and small its not a sin to maid this kind of maps every person now that !!!! I think that your opinion and request for deleting is intencly maid because of the content that map shows :) --DraganKitanoski (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
novo ke ima ajde ne se sekirajte :) its not ok because such a file are in the commons but the truth have to go out you now :) --DraganKitanoski (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account. In addition, it's a more like a personal photo and seems hardly usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo shot in France, which has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, provided this installation has to be considered as a work of art. In addition, EXIF data of this image state "(C)Philippe MARTIN, All rights reserved", which might indicate a Flickr-washing account.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Likely not own work, as image was already on other websites in 2011. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Professional photo. Permission link gives no such permission SimonLyall (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Photo from news website. Link to permission gives no such permission SimonLyall (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Link to permission give no such permission. SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Link to permission give no such permission. SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone has tagged this as a copyright violation because it is a CD cover. However, I think that the image is {{PD-ineligible}}, but I would like to have a second or third opinion before I simply change the license. ALE! ¿…? 09:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Group doesn't reach french Wikipedia criterias. I would go for a speedy delete as this is an album cover. --SamuelFreli (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- French article deleted by admins [4]. --SamuelFreli (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably a copyviol from the source (now offline: http://ilfriuli.it/udineseblog/images/ilfriuli/pasquale_1083%20copy.jpg); no EXIF or other metadata; hard to be an "own work" Delfort (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the Flickr user has any rights over the original photo on this album cover. - Túrelio (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_(5235964604).jpg){kind=link}
_(5235964604).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This seems to be a modern art installation and is likely copyrighted, which makes the photo a derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![10:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/06#c-Túrelio-2012-12-06T10:56:00.000Z-File:Exposition_"Monuments,_stars_du_7ème_art"_(Conciergerie)_(5235964604).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
![00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/06#c-INeverCry-2012-12-13T00:20:00.000Z-File:Exposition_"Monuments,_stars_du_7ème_art"_(Conciergerie)_(5235964604).jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, cropped from unknown source. Gunnex (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: All uploads copyvios and/or problematic. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a capture/photograph of TV, i.e. derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE, used only on non-notable w:Matt Lascola (now deleted). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Grabbed from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10832446&postcount=146 (2006, "RRC", .jpg, last modified: 2006) without evidence of permission. Gunnex (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE. Very poor quality (blurry, rotated, compo, grain), and there is a better version of the same perspective at File:Igrejadapampulha.jpg ELEKHHT 12:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked, not used, better photo File:Goettingen StNikolai 02.jpg existing. Info: Deletion request added by uploader. Dehio (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nicht erklärt, um was für ein Gebäude es sich handelt, gehört nicht in die Hauptkategorie Goslor hinein. Pedelecs (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Innenaufnahme im Nordturm der Marktkirche in Goslar? --Dehio (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nicht erklärt, um was für ein Gebäude es sich hier handelt. Es gehört auch nicht in die Hauptkategorie Gosloar hinein. Pedelecs (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Innenaufnahme im Nordturm der Marktkirche in Goslar? --Dehio (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nicht erklärt, um was für ein Gebäude es sich hier handelt. Es gehört auch nicht in die Hauptkategorie Gosloar hinein. Pedelecs (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Innenaufnahme im Nordturm der Marktkirche in Goslar? --Dehio (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nicht erklärt, um was es sich hier handelt. Es gehört auch nicht in die Hauptkategorie Gosloar hinein. Pedelecs (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mein Tipp: Realschule Hoher Weg in Goslar (Kreuzung Hoher Weg / Klappenhagen)? --Dehio (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nicht erklärt, um was für ein Gebäude es sich hier handelt. Es gehört auch nicht in die Hauptkategorie Gosloar hinein. Pedelecs (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded solely for vandalism purposes. Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader, per EXIF data statement: (C) Adion Allain Photography . -- Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
See File:Stanislovas Kuzma Sutartine 3.jpg. This is claimed to be a dupe of that file, and that file was deleted due to no freedom of panorama in Lithuania. Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Nanjingskyline200997.jpg has been deleted here, so I guess the same applies for a derivative file. Secret of success (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
personal attacks 太刻薄 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation. It is a studio photo and was undoubtedly copyrighted. The source of this photo is eBay. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Although eBay does not own many images of products, prior publication is not yet proven. Notice or no notice, the image must be assumed to be non-free. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of company with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No free NASA photo, pictures from Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center are unfortunately copyrighted. Ras67 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The owner told me that the chapel has been force opened and wishes the picture tu be suppressed all the more it is said disused. ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 18:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Adapted from File:How_to_Survive_a_Zombie_Attack,_by_Acey_Duecy.jpg, and whilst the element may be arguably de-minimis in that, it is a copyrighted element and not owned by the owner of the above photograph - A Google reverse search shows it appears to originate here and while they are given away as "freebies" there's no explicit licence or PD release. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Adapted from File:How_to_Survive_a_Zombie_Attack,_by_Acey_Duecy.jpg, and whilst the element may be arguably de-minimis in that, it is a copyrighted element and not owned by the owner of the above photograph - A Google reverse search shows it appears to originate here and while they are given away as "freebies" there's no explicit licence or PD release. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 19:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I already check it here and its likely to be a copyright violation for this airline logo. --Cyrfaw (Talk) 09:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Alan.lorenzo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [5] INeverCry 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Ideal example of copyvio: view. In the google link There are many sources with copyright. Alan.lorenzo (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
IDF does not have the copyright for that photo Antemister (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is of the Rift booth and is made up predominately of copyrighted objects: Rift screenshot in the bottom left and the large, green art sculpture. Odie5533 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio from http://g.io.ua/img_aa/large/2202/72/22027227.jpg (right part). See claim (in Russian) -- Kaganer (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Kaganer (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
wrong file Joannekang (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Flickr account of "Free Gaza" has inappropriately claimed ownership for this image. It was already deleted from the page of Dogan earlier [6]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
author died 1948, so still copyrighted. 84.177.162.228 20:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
file is loaded incorrectly Николай Усик (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but this statue is too recent to be out of copyright and, regrettably, Costa Rica has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with File:John Lennon Costa Rica.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
--- But where is the problem with this photo? There's a picture of an identical statue in Cuba the same sculptor, and that seems to have no problem in Wikipedia.--Apega71 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
See:
- Didn't you read my rationale? Both statues are copyrighted by their sculptors. But, Cuba has an exemption[7] from copyright for works in public space (so-called freedom-of-panorama exemption), whereas Costa Rica has not. That means that your photo violates the copyright of the sculptor; you are not allowed to publish it. In such a situation, the only way to get a valid permission is to ask the sculptor himself if he is willing to grant it. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No source, no description, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 21:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meeting_Visual_Arts.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Follower Writing.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Beginning Music.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Enlightenment.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Travels.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Night Ascend.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; regardless of its artistic merits, it doesn't appear to have any "useful" purpose within Commons' scope Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that provided information of origin is correct. Kubitschek died long before 2008. Miraceti (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Source = "Júnior", Author = "Gilmar Botelho", Permission = "OTRS pending" + PD-self = User:Carangolense = ???. Gunnex (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Also:
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Tiny picture; TinEye reveals many copies around the web, some of which seem to be derived from a larger original. Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Tuberculosis-Pericarditis-with-Cardiac-Tamponade-Management-in-the-Resource-Limited-Setting-SD10.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article page at journal does not mention anything about Creative Commons licensing, nor does the Reprinst and Permissions page. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Tuberculosis-Pericarditis-with-Cardiac-Tamponade-Management-in-the-Resource-Limited-Setting-SD9.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article page at journal does not mention anything about Creative Commons licensing, nor does the Reprinst and Permissions page. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD2.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD3.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD5.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD6.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD7.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD8.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD4.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, whereas the article's page on the journal's site links to an Online Open Terms page, which explicitly forbids commercial reuse. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This image does not present the truth. It is not based on scholarly research, but most probably original research. http://ahn.geodan.nl/ahn/viewer3/index.html gives an idea where the blue area should be. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This image does not present the truth. It is not based on scholarly research, but most probably original research. http://ahn.geodan.nl/ahn/viewer3/index.html gives an idea where the blue area should be. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Arthroscopic-histological-and-MRI-analyses-of-cartilage-repair-aftera-minimally-invasive-method-of-SD2.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a dead link to additional terms and condition, whereas the article's page on the journal's site does not mention anything about Creative Commons licensing, nor does the publisher's current Terms and Conditions page. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Arthroscopic-histological-and-MRI-analyses-of-cartilage-repair-aftera-minimally-invasive-method-of-SD3.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a dead link to additional terms and condition, whereas the article's page on the journal's site does not mention anything about Creative Commons licensing, nor does the publisher's current Terms and Conditions page. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Live-imaging-of-altered-period1-expression-in-the-suprachiasmatic-nuclei-of-Vipr2−−-mice1-jnc0106-1646-SD2.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, and the same contradictory statement also occurs at the article's page on the journal's site. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Live-imaging-of-altered-period1-expression-in-the-suprachiasmatic-nuclei-of-Vipr2−−-mice1-jnc0106-1646-SD3.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, and the same contradictory statement also occurs at the article's page on the journal's site. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Live-imaging-of-altered-period1-expression-in-the-suprachiasmatic-nuclei-of-Vipr2−−-mice1-jnc0106-1646-SD4.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, and the same contradictory statement also occurs at the article's page on the journal's site. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Live-imaging-of-altered-period1-expression-in-the-suprachiasmatic-nuclei-of-Vipr2−−-mice1-jnc0106-1646-SD5.ogv
[edit]Machine-readable license is CC BY but the human-readable version in the same file has a non-commercial clause, and the same contradictory statement also occurs at the article's page on the journal's site. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the designer of the chapel would have died before 1945. Additionally, the chapel was renovated several times, and it may differ from the originally built one. Eleassar (t/p) 12:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This image is cropped from a larger image. A smallish version of the original can be seen here. It is from a larger set of similar images. The text at bottom left says (c) 2001 ATK Natural & Hairy. Some parts of the image have also been blurred in an obvious attempt to further hide its origin.
Other images from this same uploader show similar alterations. I think it would be wise to delete all uploads from this particular user and block the account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Not sure why we should trust a user who would knowingly upload copyright violations. --Conti|✉ 02:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I have deleted the first image as a clear copyvio, and suggest the others be deleted per COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Tiptoety talk 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --Andreas JN466 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Avignon-Vor der Opera-Theatre-Statue des Theaterdichters & Schauspielers der klassischen frz. Komödie Moliere 1622-1673 am Place de le Horloge-Uhrturmplatz.JPG
[edit]
Derivative of a sculpture by Jean-Pierre Gras (died 1964) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France). Bob247 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a sculpture by Jean-Pierre Gras (died 1964) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France). Steffenheilfort (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was soll das?????????? Ort , Name , Lizenz sowie Bezeichnung des Fotos sind korrekt. Es handelt sich um die Statue Moliere vor der Opera bzw. Theatre in Avignon.Wenn dieser Löschung entsprochen wird werde ich alle meine Bilder aus dem Wikimedia entfernen . Für Randalierer und Wichtigtuer habe ich nichts übrig. Und Mr. Bob sollte Deutsch lernen bevor er mein Bild zerstören lassen möchte. - Steffenheilfort (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Die Europakarte ist falsch da es in der Türkei nie eine Diktatur gegeben hat!! Schon garnicht ab 1920 da dort die Republik und auch die Demokratie gegründet wurde! Irbas20 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There are several mistakes in that map, see the file talk (in German), e.g. the Second Polish Republic is shown as a dictatorship. NNW (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: at Commons we usually consider such problems not as a compelling reason for deletion, though there may be exceptions. It is up to the projects to use or not to use the map. In fact, the map is currently in use. In addition, it should be easily possible to "repair"/correct this map. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)- Keep There might be mistakes in the map, but the appropriate way seems to me: is to discuss the (possible) mistakes on the Commons talkpage and then make a change in the picture. Regarding Poland - it really is controversial to depict Poland as dictatorship in the same manner as lets say Germany, then again, the country had been in some edgy state itself, being overly authoritarian too.. But as I say - those arguments should have been (IMHO) discussed elsewhere. Reo On (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
- The file name is wrong. In 1918 Finland looked different and there was no Free City of Danzig. In 1939 there was no independent Austria. Hatay was part of Turkey, not of Syria.
- The caption is ever wronger (bad English). In 1940 Eastern Europe looked completely different with no democratic Czechoslovakia.
- The legend is wrong or at least misleading. Democracy in Lithuania ended in 1926, not in 1920; in Latvia in 1934, not in 1933; Romania was a constitutional monarchy first which ended in 1938, not in 1933; there was the Kingdom of Bulgaria from 1908 to 1946 with an absolutistic tsar since 1935. In Iran reigned the Shah. And the legend only offers democracy, dictatorship and dependent areas. Iran was non of these.
- Mistakes like Poland, Turkey...
- In my opinion a bit too many mistakes for a simple map (with a poor graphic). Almost everything would have been to change to correct this map: file name, legend, thematic presentation, even boundaries. This is ridiculous. And what does it mean "to correct"? Does the uploader want to show Europe until 1939 or until 1940? Most German maps e.g. take 1937 at the last date with accepted borders because the Munich Agreement became annulled during WW II. NNW (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Per NNW: Unclear scope and too many plain errors (regardless of whether a particular country is correctly considered to be a "dictatorship" in the given time frame) in a low quality map. I think this is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:US President George H. W. Bush Presidential Trips.PNG, which was deleted by Jameslwoodward who stated there: "Although we don't usually delete a map which some people, based on their political point of view, think is correct and other people think is wrong, we certainly don't keep maps that are just wrong." Gestumblindi (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Because i am the original uploader of the image and i need to delete it from Wikimedia Commons. I tried to edit the Isabel dos Santos page in portuguese, but all my actions were reverted. I have no interest in contribute with this image because i don´t agree with the information that exists in this profile.
Regards! Motioncreator (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Original source states © LPM Comunicação 2012 INeverCry 06:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need a licence regarding the coloring. I don't believe that Thyra is the dyeing artist. Ras67 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Most likely the images are not own work.
- File:Argentinian AA canon.jpg
- File:Cp30 Argentinian misile system.jpg
- File:Argentinian Otto Melara.jpg
- File:Mortero Argentino.jpg
- File:Argentinian M72 LAW.jpg
- File:Cascos-azules-argentina.jpg
- File:Soldados argentinos.jpg
- File:Box-k8.jpg
- File:Fmk-1.jpg
- File:GME-FMK-2.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all, multiple older copies exist in the web, too many to locate the likely originals easily. From a quick check a higher resolution image of AA cannon is found from 2011 (2012 claimed), Oto Melera artillery image is found from 2010 (2012 claimed). Mortar image has a higher resolution copy from 2008, UN troop image might be from [8], soldier with rifle from [9], hand grenades were probably all taken from [10]. MKFI (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The ARRS files uploaded by MCGF-media (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos/album covers, not own work. No evidence of permissions
- File:Toki by Max Pillet - monstercore 2 BD.png
- File:THE hellfest 2007.JPG
- File:Stefo live THE ARRS by A obennt BD.png
- File:Phil by johan Boutin - monstercore 2 BD.png
- File:Pierre live THE ARRS by A obennt BD.png
- File:Nico 1 live THE ARRS by A obennt BD.png
- File:Nico 2 live THE ARRS by Anthony Dubois.jpg
- File:By johan Boutin - monstercore 1.png
- File:THE ARRS 2012.png
- File:THE ARRS 2012 UAT.png
- File:THE ARRS 2010 (2).png
- File:THE ARRS 2012 (2).png
- File:THE ARRS 2010.jpg
- File:THE ARRS 2009.jpg
- File:THE ARRS 2007.png
- File:THE ARRS 2008.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD pierre.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD toki.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD nico2.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD nico3.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD paskual.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD nico.jpg
- File:THE ARRS DVD jay.jpg
- File:Flyer4.jpg
- File:Compilation Sedition Trexsound 2004.jpg
- File:Tour 2012 THE ARRS.png
- File:Promotion THE ARRS 2005.jpg
- File:Tour 2007 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:Tour 2006 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:AFFICHE METRO PARIS THE ARRS 2009.jpg
- File:Affichetest 2010 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:Affiche 2012 THE ARRS.png
- File:Affiche 2010 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:AFFICHE 2009 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:Affiche 2007 THE ARRS.jpg
- File:Compilation Revolution Calling 2006.jpg
- File:Compilation Haute tension 2004.jpg
- File:Compilation French metal - La colère des dieux 2012.png
- File:Compilation French Core 2005.jpg
- File:Compilation French metal - A tombeau ouvert 2009.jpg
- File:THE ARRS - trinité 2007.jpg
- File:THE ARRS - Soleil Noir 2012.png
- File:THE ARRS - heros assassin 2009.jpg
- File:THE ARRS - et la douleur est la même 2005.jpg
- File:THE ARRS - DVD JUST LIVE 2010.jpg
- File:THE ARRS - dans la chair et par le sang réed 2011.png
- File:THE ARRS - condition humaine 2003.png
- File:THE ARRS - condition humaine réed 2009.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MCGF-media (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Mur peint en trompe l'oeil par Catherine feff.jpg
- File:Poissy - Levallois - trompe l'oeil hyper realiste - mur peint vegetal par Catherine Feff.jpg
- File:Bache peinte - Meknes par Catherine Feff.jpg
- File:Levallois - Paris- trompe l'oeil par Catherine Feff.jpg
- File:Mur peint decoratif - hotel Apostrophe - Parispar Catherine Feff.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Efectomoral (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of still/promo photos. Some may be found on other web-sites with early date of uploads.
- File:Catherine Mazoyer en APIO VERDE (7).JPG
- File:Catherine Mazoyer en APIO VERDE (8).JPG
- File:Catherine Mazoyer en APIO VERDE (6).JPG
- File:PamelaLeivaenDiccionariodelSexo5.JPG
- File:PamelaLeivaenDiccionariodelSexo2.JPG
- File:PamelaLeivaenDiccionariodelSexo1.JPG
- File:PamelaLeivayEstebanErazoenDiccionariodelSexo.JPG
- File:Apio verde en MP4.jpg
- File:CATHERINE MAZOYER en Apio Verde 7.jpg
- File:Catherine Mazoyer en APIO VERDE (2).JPG
- File:CATHERINE MAZOYER en Apio Verde.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Catherine Mazoyer 5.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Cristian Gajardo.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Cristian Gajardo y Catherine Mazoyer.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Catherine Mazoyer y Jenny Cavallo.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Catherine Mazoyer y Sonia Mena 2.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Catherine Mazoyer 4.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE con Catherine Mazoyer 3.JPG
- File:APIO VERDE Catherine Mazoyer y Gregory Cohen.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}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Djbrotherdf (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per out of COM:SCOPE: Advertising and self-promotion material of a Brazilian DJ which contains: album covers, remixes of sounds with unknown copyright issues and a collection of private/personal pictures. As I could verify, no files in use. Related article deleted 2x + 1x + 1x in ptwiki and user blocked infinite for spamming.
- File:Além Do Entorno - Negra ( Versão Rádio Master ).ogg
- File:Além Do Entorno - Faço O Que Posso ( Versão Rádio Master ).ogg
- File:Além Do Entorno - 61, 62 ( Versão Rádio Master Ok ).ogg
- File:Sabotage - Um Bom Lugar (Dj Brother Crunk Rmx) - Ok.ogg
- File:Djbrotherdf-macalister-lembrancas-prod-por-dj-brother-df.ogg
- File:Djbrotherdf-dgrau-feat-cika-jy-dust-bohemia-versao-radio.ogg
- File:CAPAIdentidadeDJBROTHER.jpg
- File:CAPALu fantyneDjBrother.jpg
- File:CAPAConhecimento fundamentaldjbrother.jpg
- File:CAPAAlem do entornoDjBrother.jpg
- File:CAPASao sebastiaodjBRother.jpg
- File:CAPABlack style dj brother.jpg
- File:CAPADEF MCSdjbrother.jpg
- File:CAPACircuito negroDJbrother.jpg
- File:CAPAAdvertencia moral DJ BROTHER.jpg
- File:CAPAFalso sistema DJ BROTHER.jpg
- File:Sob suspeita o tema e favela DJBROTHER.jpg
- File:Sob Suspeita alicerse da vida DJ BROTHER.jpg
- File:CapaCDIdeologia a arte da guerra Dj Brother.jpg
- File:CapaCDIdeologia fora da lei DJ Brother.jpg
- File:Capa gog convida.jpg
File:Dj Brother e Flora matos.jpgUseful for Category:Flora Matos. Gunnex (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)- File:Dj Bother Fac 2012.jpg
- File:Dj Brother DMC2009.jpg
- File:Bigbosslogo.png
- File:LogoDjBrother.png
- File:Batata - O Tempo é Rei Parte II (Prod. Dj Brother).ogg
- File:Djbrotherdf gog e o crime.ogg
- File:Dj Brother DF.jpg
- File:DJ Brother.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE/Spamming. Érico Wouters msg 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andterra2003 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andterra2003 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Andterra2003 / logs. The last 2 copyvio from today were screenshotted from Youtube and - considering e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Los tres.jpg - the rest most likely also grabbed from Youtube or elsewhere. No counter-arguing in 3 deletion requests.
Gunnex (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ahi una versión de mayor calidad en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_Via_Panam.svg GPOChile (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Reemplázala entonces. Pero no es motivo para borrarla. Rakela (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Rakela PierreSelim (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Debe borrarse y ocupar el otro archivo de mayor calidad y en formato .svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_Via_Panam.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- ¿De nuevo? Reemplázala entonces. Pero eso no es motivo para eliminarla. Rakela (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept Policy is to keep pre-existing raster files. Please do not nominate this again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Imagen de mayor calidad y del mismo contenido en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_Via_Panam.svg GPOChile (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete the file PierreSelim (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Flickrreview has not marked this image in 2 days. Since the exact source is not indicated--NARA or US Navy--I invite the Community to decide if the image can be kept. I have no opinion here and just want a consensus. If its a US Navy photo, then it would be Public Domain, but if its NARA, I'm uncertain about the image's copyright status. Leoboudv (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep From the looks of this, it is an official government image, so I think it should be kept because of that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I just flickrpassed this image to get it out of the flickr review category where it has remained for about 2 weeks. Not because I endorse keeping this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is almost certainly the same launch (a second later) as seen in the bottommost photo here: [11] which is described as a USAF photo. Avi (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The lamp looks modern and there's no information when was it made. Nominated due to COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep What a weird proposal again! Declaring a hardware store item being an artistic object! Please convince Eleassar to stop his activities on Wikimedia Commons which oppose common sense. --Hladnikm (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's completely in the scope of the law.(Article 5.10) --Eleassar (t/p) 18:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is a lamp, not a work of art or sculpture. The wall is probably modern too, as is the wire. Avi (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Mustafa Kemal at beach.jpg
- File:Sabiha Gokcen after Dersim's genocide.jpg
- File:Sabiha Gokcen is kissing Inonu's hand.jpg
These photograph are not {{Own work}} of the uploader. All of them seems enough old and taken by officials. However I couldn't prove it because the uploader didn't provide information on original sources. Takabeg (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are not these pictures public domain according to fourth paragraph of Template:PD-Turkey?--Rapsar (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- How can I make them public domain according to fourth paragraph of Template:PD-Turkey without sources ? Takabeg (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- but they are also at public domain, no-one owns those photoes, show us only relieble sources to keep you arguments on! Try to be neutral please. --Alsace38 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- How can I make them public domain according to fourth paragraph of Template:PD-Turkey without sources ? Takabeg (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry mister Taka, but those foto are free of use, if you says that those photos are for somebody or someone, so you mus prouve it, or you must give us more details. Sorry but you cannot make here turkish official propagands, and you cannot ask everywhere for deletaion of photos that you don't like. So let people to contribute freely. --Alsace38 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This is only a private proposal for a new flag for kosovo, it was not published elesewhere, private artworks are out of scope. Antemister (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not a reason for deletion.
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Such artworks are out of scope. It seems that Fry1989 is the only one who wants to keep such files here. Antemister (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per last DR, I'm not the only one, an admin and an IP also wanted it to stay. No new info for reasoning. Fry1989 eh? 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No source provided, usage of copyrighted style (by WMATA) Peter Talk 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this is an official map from the service provider? I checked at the company's website and the map there looks a little bit different. Of course, I can't tell whether the official map might have been redesigned since the file was uploaded back in 2006, or whether there are multiple variants in use. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The upload log clearly states that the original uploader is the author. Also, IIRC WMATA claims copyrights but is on legally baseless grounds. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per above. INeverCry 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eliane Daphy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Dufy pas dans le domaine public|source= cf échanges bistrot PierreSelim (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Another Deletion request, same case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dufy Les Allies.jpg here. --Eliane Daphy (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As already explained here, though I agree French copyright law might have applied in France only on top of pattern protection under patent law (under which protection has expired). The 1909 law did not specify such intellectual rights which were introduced by the law of 1957. Under the latter, the artistic content of this industrial handkerchief produced and sold by Charvet in 1918, would have been considered, for copyright issues, as a "collective work" as defined by article L. 113-2 par. 3 of the Code de la Propriété intellectuelle. According to article L. 113-5 of the same Code, the copyright owner of such collective work is assumed to be the party who "divulgated" the product, i.e. the company
Charvet, who ordered and published it under its nameBianchini-Férier who acquired the sketch from Dufy and all possible copyrights, produced the fabric and registered the pattern [later addition for clarification of development below]. In such case, according to article L. 123-3 of the same Code, the duration of the copyright was 70 years from January 1 of 1919, the year following its publication, and the work is since 1989 in the public domain. — Racconish Tk 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)- Minor correction: According to the 1957 law, the copyright protection was 50 years. It was extended to 70 years by a 1992 law, after this work had fallen in the public domain. — Racconish Tk 11:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Idem cette image. Article L113-2 du code la propriété intellectuelle le texte exact sur LégiFrance : « Est dite collective l'œuvre créée sur l'initiative d'une personne physique ou morale qui l'édite, la publie et la divulgue sous sa direction et son nom et dans laquelle la contribution personnelle des divers auteurs participant à son élaboration se fond dans l'ensemble en vue duquel elle est conçue, sans qu'il soit possible d'attribuer à chacun d'eux un droit distinct sur l'ensemble réalisé. » Je ne vois pas comment une œuvre présentée ici comme "dessin de Dufy" commercialisé par Charvet sur un foulard ou un mouchoir pourrait être considérée comme "une œuvre collective", car il semble que l'utilisation du nom de l'auteur démontre clairement la possibilité de lui "attribuer sa contribution personnelle". Je ne pense pas que l'entourage du dessin de Dufy par Charvet suffit à considérer qu'il est "impossible d'attribuer à la contribution de Dufy un droit distinct dans le cadre d'une œuvre collective". Je suis très gênée par le fait que l'échange soit en anglais, et que le terme employé soit "copyright", notion qui n'existe pas dans le droit français, où la législation repose sur les droits patrimoniaux et moraux des auteurs, et pas sur "le droit de copie" du propriétaire. Je précise que Dufy était en 1915 un artiste célèbre, et n'était pas salarié de Charvet, la législation sur les modèles ne peut s'appliquer à cette œuvre. Il me semble que le contributeur fait une interprétation abusive du texte de la loi protégeant les auteurs, comme il l'avait fait dans la précédente PàS en argumentant avec la loi sur la propriété industrielle. --Eliane Daphy (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here are some clarifications after checking references. On March 1, 1912 Dufy was hired as a decorative artist by the company Bianchini-Férier (Anne Toulonnas et Jack Vidal, Raoul Dufy : l'oeuvre en soie, Barthélémy, 1998, p. 41). In exchange of a monthly wage of 425 francs and a share of the profit of the firm, he gave to Bianchini-Férier an exclusivity on his textile production and all textile design created during the contract was to remain the property of Bianchini-Férier (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). Accordingly Binachini-Férier was the owner of all the textile designs created by Dufy during the contract ([12]). The transfer of copyright by the designer to the producer of the fabric was a regular practice of the time (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). Such was the case for Dufy's work having served as a basis for the printing of the fabric Drapeau de la Victoire (Victory rooster) by Bianchini Férier, pattern n° 51727 in the company's archives (Dora Perez-Tibi, Dufy, Flammarion, 1989, p. 112-113 et 325). Consequently, all copyright on this work, stemming both from the pattern registration and the more general droit d'auteur were owned by the corporation Bianchini-Férier. In case of ownership by a company, the droit d'auteur copyright is computed from January 1st of the civil year following the release of the product in 1918. All rights due to the registration of the pattern (25 years) or the general copyright (70 years from the divulgation of the pattern in the case of a company) are therefore now extinguished. Nominator advised.
- Vérifications faites, j'apporte les précisions suivantes. Le 1er mars 1912, Dufy est engagé comme artiste décorateur par la firme Bianchini-Férier (Anne Toulonnas et Jack Vidal, Raoul Dufy : l'oeuvre en soie, Barthélémy, 1998, p. 41). Il touche un salaire mensuel de 425 francs et reçoit une part d'intérêts sur les bénéfices de l'entreprise (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). En contrepartie, le peintre concède l'exclusivité de sa production pour le textile à Bianchini-Férier et toute composition créée pendant la durée de ce contrat restera la propriété de cette société (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). C'est donc cette entreprise qui "est propriétaire de tous les dessins créés pendant la durée du contrat" ([13]). La cession des droits d'auteur au fabricant était une pratique courante à l'époque, les dessinateurs cédant "avec les maquettes leurs droits d'auteur, comme il est d'usage dans cette profession, et laiss[a]nt les fabricants les interpréter comme ils l'entend[ai]ent" (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). Tel est notamment le cas du projet à la gouache pour Bianchini-Férier ayant servi à l'impression du Drapeau de la Victoire, qui figure dans les archives Bianchini-Férier sous le numéro 51727 (Dora Perez-Tibi, Dufy, Flammarion, 1989, p. 112-113 et 325). En l'absence d'une cession par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier de ses droits, l'oeuvre aurait eu, selon moi, au sens de la loi de 1957, le statut d'une oeuvre collective, eu égard au rôle déterminant joué par Charles Bianchini, qui "choisit parmi les compositions [...], organise ses collections en regroupant les esquisses autour de quelques techniques d'ennoblissement [et décide de] la tendance qui repose aussi sur la gamme colorée" (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). Mais cette question est rendue sans objet par la cesssion par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier de ses droits patrimoniaux sur ces dessins. Quant à la relation commerciale entre Charvet et son fournisseur, Bianchini-Férier, elle est sans rapport avec la question de la propriété de ces droits. Il en résulte (1) que la question de savoir s'il s'agissait ou non d'une oeuvre collective est sans importance compte tenu de la cession de ses droits par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier ; (2) qu'en conséquence, s'agissant d'une personne morale, les droits couraient pour un terme fixe (50 ans selon la loi de 1957, 70 ans selon la loi de 1992) à compter du 1er janvier de l'année suivant celle de leur divulgation (cf. [14]); (3) qu'en conséquence, l'oeuvre est tombée dans le domaine public, tant du fait de la péremption du dépôt du dessin que de celle du droit d'auteur. Cordialement, — Racconish Tk 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently PD-Old FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The image was taken in Berlin. Therefore, a "polish" license does not apply. ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The text says "photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad)". It says nothing about where the photo was taken. // Liftarn (talk)
In Berlin galt einige Wochen sowjetisches und polnisches Recht, die 1. und 2. Polnische Armee hat bei der Schlacht um Berlin mitgekämpft. Polen war in den ersten Nachkriegstagen Besatzungsmacht, zumindest solange Kriegsrecht galt. Berlin war also sowjetisches und polnisches Hoheitsgebiet, kein deutsches. --Ralf Roleček 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Berlin was a few weeks Soviet and Polish law, the first and second Polish army fought at the Battle of Berlin. Poland was in the early postwar days occupying power, at least as long as martial law was. Berlin was so Soviet and Polish territory, no German" Well, that's also an interesting point. // Liftarn (talk)
- Where the photograph was taken is not relevant to the law; what matters is where it was published. If we want to insist for Commons policy that Germany is our nation of origin, it may still be out of copyright there by the rule of the shorter term as a photograph from Poland. I'm not positive on that, but even if we treat it as a photograph of Germany doesn't mean that legally Germany is going to treat it as a German photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exact date of photo taken is unknown. Germany capitulated on the 8-9th of May, therefor the picture might still have been taken while Berlin was German. However due to the circumstances (War) one could conclude that if the picture was taken by the Polish where they stood, that that terrain at that stage would have been in Polish hands, therefor making it Polish territorial gain. I suggest one would simply apply pubic domain license to it due to the below laws on copyright.
When Copyright Protection Becomes Public Domain:
Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain. Source = http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/expiration.htm
I see no copyright on the photo, so unless someone claims and proofs copywright, it is public domain and fine to use.
- That has little to do with Commons policy or international copyright law. That's only valid for the US, and for works first published in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Image was scanned from a book. Does the book state the author of this image? If not it has to be deleted as the polish author part is not verifyable, also no proof the image was first published in Poland. A first publication in Poland is not relevant if the author was of another nationality as it may have been PD in Poland but not in the source country of the author. --Denniss (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Source country is the country of first publication in Berne, and that's always how I've seen it treated for Commons rules. Nationality of the author is rarely relevant unless first publication was in a non-Berne signator.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No reliable source stating that this photo was originally published anonymously or that the author would have died before 1945. The OTRS confirmation by the museum is missing. Eleassar (t/p) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The user who posted this photo and was given the permission has passed away, so it is unlikely that someone else will upload the photo again, if it gets deleted. The copyright status seems ok, so I think it is safe to keep it even if the permission was not archived using OTRS. --Miha (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what was actually written in the received permission. Was it given for Wikipedia only or for the unlimited usage by anyone? There's also no rationale why the museum would be the copyright holder. The death year of the copyright holder is unknown. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the duplicate image File:Šalamenci 1931 leta.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
amd File:Barranco Ortsschild.JPG. Commons:Derivative works from billboard. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Both pictures shows the official town sign and you see it when you enter the Town as a Information like our town sign when you enter a town in Germany or whereever you are travelling... In Belize there is no law how should a town sign look like. That's the reason they are so different. I'm not a lawyer but I think it could be a utilitarian aspect. Please inform me about your decision. I also have uploaded the town sign of Red Bank, Punta Gorda and Gales Point. If it isn't possible to have a town sign on commons we should even delete them. Elelicht (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OK according to Commons:FOP#Belize. Yann (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belize seems to be very similar to COM:FOP#United Kingdom: FOP only covers buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship. It seems that Belize simply copied the UK FOP law. This would not count as a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law (which normally requires that a work is 3D), so I don't see why it would be covered by the law of Belize either. Same problem with File:Barranco Ortsschild.JPG, which was mentioned above. Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This 2D Work is permanently shown as a copy in public place, because this is the official Town sign you can find at every street when you enter the Town. This sign you can find when you enter the Town from Copper Bank. And what is the differens to pictures like File:The Blue Hole Park.jpg?Elelicht (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:The Blue Hole Park.jpg also looks problematic. It is not permissible to take photos of most 2D works in the United Kingdom or most former British colonies even if they are permanently shown in a public place. The laws differ from country to country. In Sweden and Germany, you can take photos of 2D works. In Australia and Canada, you can't. In France and Belgium, you can't even take photos of buildings, and in the United States and Denmark you can't take photos of sculptures although buildings are allowed. For a list of what you may take photos of in different countries, see COM:FOP. I know that this may be confusing to some people, in particular since the laws differ a lot from country to country. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- So the only way would be to request directly (e.g. Major of Sarteneja) a permission to use these pictures with a Wiki-license? Elelicht (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:The Blue Hole Park.jpg also looks problematic. It is not permissible to take photos of most 2D works in the United Kingdom or most former British colonies even if they are permanently shown in a public place. The laws differ from country to country. In Sweden and Germany, you can take photos of 2D works. In Australia and Canada, you can't. In France and Belgium, you can't even take photos of buildings, and in the United States and Denmark you can't take photos of sculptures although buildings are allowed. For a list of what you may take photos of in different countries, see COM:FOP. I know that this may be confusing to some people, in particular since the laws differ a lot from country to country. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently an FOP violation -FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Work of Raoul Dufy, who died only in 1953, thereby protected til end of 2023, provided we consider it above the threshold of originality. - Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, shedule in Category:Undelete in 2024. A.J. (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an image of a handkerchief manufactured and sold by Charvet in 1915. The copyright on the design is a matter of industrial property and falls in the public domain 25 years after its first release.— Racconish Tk 09:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is true for France? --Túrelio (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- France had signed in 1883 the Paris convention. At the time of the launch of the product by Charvet, the applicable French law was that of July 14, 1909, which gave a 25 years protection in case of registration of the model, with an option for a 25 years renewal. — Racconish Tk 09:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be solid enough, Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be solid enough,
- France had signed in 1883 the Paris convention. At the time of the launch of the product by Charvet, the applicable French law was that of July 14, 1909, which gave a 25 years protection in case of registration of the model, with an option for a 25 years renewal. — Racconish Tk 09:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is true for France? --Túrelio (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-old --ZooFari 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eliane Daphy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Dufy pas dans le domaine public|source= cf échanges bistrot PierreSelim (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Pour information Same case here, another PàS--Eliane Daphy (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As already explained here, though I agree French copyright law might have applied in France only on top of pattern protection under patent law (under which protection has expired). The 1909 law did not specify such intellectual rights which were introduced by the law of 1957. Under the latter, the artistic content of this industrial handkerchief produced and sold by Charvet in 1915, would have been considered, for copyright issues, as a "collective work" as defined by article L. 113-2 par. 3 of the Code de la Propriété intellectuelle. According to article L. 113-5 of the same Code, the copyright owner of such collective work is assumed to be the party who "divulgated" the product, i.e. the company
Charvet, who ordered and published it under its nameBianchini-Férier who acquired the sketch from Dufy together with all possible copyright, produced the fabric and registered the pattern [later addition for clarification of development below]. In such case, according to article L. 123-3 of the same Code, the duration of the copyright was 70 years from January 1 of 1916, the year following its publication, and the work is since 1986 in the public domain. — Racconish Tk 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)- Minor correction: According to the 1957 law, the copyright protection was 50 years. It was extended to 70 years by a 1992 law, after this work had fallen in the public domain. — Racconish Tk 11:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Article L113-2 du code la propriété intellectuelle le texte exact sur LégiFrance : « Est dite collective l'œuvre créée sur l'initiative d'une personne physique ou morale qui l'édite, la publie et la divulgue sous sa direction et son nom et dans laquelle la contribution personnelle des divers auteurs participant à son élaboration se fond dans l'ensemble en vue duquel elle est conçue, sans qu'il soit possible d'attribuer à chacun d'eux un droit distinct sur l'ensemble réalisé. » Je ne vois pas comment une œuvre présentée ici comme "dessin de Dufy" commercialisé par Charvet sur un foulard ou un mouchoir pourrait être considérée comme "une œuvre collective", car il semble que l'utilisation du nom de l'auteur démontre clairement la possibilité de lui "attribuer sa contribution personnelle". Je ne pense pas que l'entourage du dessin de Dufy par Charvet suffit à considérer qu'il est "impossible d'attribuer à la contribution de Dufy un droit distinct dans le cadre d'une œuvre collective". Je suis très gênée par le fait que l'échange soit en anglais, et que le terme employé soit "copyright", notion qui n'existe pas dans le droit français, où la législation repose sur les droits patrimoniaux et moraux des auteurs, et pas sur "le droit de copie" du propriétaire. Je précise que Dufy était en 1915 un artiste célèbre, et n'était pas salarié de Charvet, la législation sur les modèles ne peut s'appliquer à cette œuvre. Il me semble que le contributeur fait une interprétation abusive du texte de la loi protégeant les auteurs, comme il l'avait fait dans la précédente PàS en argumentant avec la loi sur la propriété industrielle. --Eliane Daphy (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nous sommes sur un projet international, les échanges se font généralement en anglais et on utilise le terme "copyright" pour parler du droit d'auteur en France, il n'y a aucune ambiguïté la dessus. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Je sais bien que nous sommes sur un projet international, mais le fait d'employer le terme "copyrigh" comme traduction pour "droits d'auteur" introduit de fait une ambigüité sémantique sur deux régimes juridiques différents, que je regrette. Il me semble que le terme "copyrigh" n'est jamais employé comme traduction de "droits d'auteur" dans les congrès internationaux ou les institutions traitant des questions de la propriété intellectuelle et artistique. Ni dans les textes internationaux en plusieurs langues (par exemple, du BIEM). Désolée de ne pas pouvoir pratiquer par écrit la techno-langue spécialisée anglaise, que je ne maitrise pas assez bien pour préciser ma pensée.--Eliane Daphy (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Cf. la jolie carte publiée sur fr:wp [15] montrant très bien la répartition mondiale des pays sous "common law" (©) et sous "droit codifié" (droits d'auteur). On peut rajouter que nombreux sont les pays de droit musulman à être sous régime "droit d'auteur" et non ©. En banalisant l'usage du terme copyight, sur un projet international, on choisit par le langage de promouvoir dans l'idéologie le "common law", et de l'imposer comme régime dominant. --Eliane Daphy (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete
Neutral Il faut distinguer licence et copyright. Wikipedia exige une licence libre, qui ne peut être donné que par le teneur du copyright (ou ses héritiers). Même si Charvet a obtenu une licence pour le dessin de Dufy, cette licence ne passe pas à des tiers. Mais "sans qu'il soit possible d'attribuer à chacun d'eux un droit distinct sur l'ensemble réalisé", c'est à dire Dufy ne tient pas un copyright sur le foulard. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here are some clarifications after checking references. On March 1, 1912 Dufy was hired as a decorative artist by the company Bianchini-Férier (Anne Toulonnas et Jack Vidal, Raoul Dufy : l'oeuvre en soie, Barthélémy, 1998, p. 41). In exchange of a monthly wage of 425 francs and a share of the profit of the firm, he gave to Bianchini-Férier an exclusivity on his textile production and all textile design created during the contract was to remain the property of Bianchini-Férier (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). Accordingly Binachini-Férier was the owner of all the textile designs created by Dufy during the contract ([16]). The transfer of copyright by the designer to the producer of the fabric was a regular practice of the time (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). The handkerchief Les Alliés was printed by Bianchini-Férier under the pattern number 51412 and the design was registered by the company on May 15, 1915 (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 47). Consequently, all copyright on this work, stemming both from the pattern registration and the more general droit d'auteur were owned by the corporation Bianchini-Férier. In case of ownership by a company, the droit d'auteur copyright is computed from January 1st of the civil year following the release of the product in 1915. All rights due to the registration of the pattern (25 years) or the general copyright (70 years from the divulgation of the pattern in the case of a company) are therefore now extinguished. Nominator advised.
- Vérifications faites, j'apporte les précisions suivantes. Le 1er mars 1912, Dufy est engagé comme artiste décorateur par la firme Bianchini-Férier (Anne Toulonnas et Jack Vidal, Raoul Dufy : l'oeuvre en soie, Barthélémy, 1998, p. 41). Il touche un salaire mensuel de 425 francs et reçoit une part d'intérêts sur les bénéfices de l'entreprise (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). En contrepartie, le peintre concède l'exclusivité de sa production pour le textile à Bianchini-Férier et toute composition créée pendant la durée de ce contrat restera la propriété de cette société (Toulonnas Vidal, p.41). C'est donc cette entreprise qui "est propriétaire de tous les dessins créés pendant la durée du contrat" ([17]). La cession des droits d'auteur au fabricant était une pratique courante à l'époque, les dessinateurs cédant "avec les maquettes leurs droits d'auteur, comme il est d'usage dans cette profession, et laiss[a]nt les fabricants les interpréter comme ils l'entend[ai]ent" (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). En particulier, la pochette Les Alliés a été imprimée par Bianchini-Férier sous le n° de patron 51412 et son dessin déposé par la fabrique le 15 mai 1915 (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 47). En l'absence d'une cession par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier de ses droits, l'oeuvre aurait eu, selon moi, au sens de la loi de 1957, le statut d'une oeuvre collective, eu égard au rôle déterminant joué par Charles Bianchini, qui "choisit parmi les compositions [...], organise ses collections en regroupant les esquisses autour de quelques techniques d'ennoblissement [et décide de] la tendance qui repose aussi sur la gamme colorée" (Toulonnas Vidal, p. 42). Mais cette question est rendue sans objet par la cesssion par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier de ses droits patrimoniaux sur ces dessins. Quant à la relation commerciale entre Charvet et son fournisseur, Bianchini-Férier, elle est sans rapport avec la question de la propriété de ces droits. Il en résulte (1) que la question de savoir s'il s'agissait ou non d'une oeuvre collective est sans importance compte tenu de la cession de ses droits par Dufy à Bianchini-Férier ; (2) qu'en conséquence, s'agissant d'une personne morale, les droits couraient pour un terme fixe (50 ans selon la loi de 1957, 70 ans selon la loi de 1992) à compter du 1er janvier de l'année suivant celle de leur divulgation (cf. [18]); (3) qu'en conséquence, l'oeuvre est tombée dans le domaine public, tant du fait de la péremption du dépôt du dessin que de celle du droit d'auteur. Cordialement, — Racconish Tk 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Il reste la question, si la cession des droits pour un temps limité de 50 ans au producteur des dérivés engendre après ces 50 ans avec la péremption du dépôt du dessin aussi la péremption du droit d'auteur sur le dessin et que le dessin soit vraiment tombé dans le domaine public ou si le péremption du dépot libère l'artiste et ses héritiers de façon qu'ils peuvent re-exercer leur droit d'auteur pas encore périmé. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- With reference to your first comment : Of course, to license a right, one must own it. The issue at stake here is to clarify if anybody owns the rights on this image. If nobody owns the rights, because the image has fallen in the public domain, no license can be given. Concerning your second point, Dufy's heirs, we should distinguish between intellectual property law and contract law. The heirs cannot make any claim on this image as Dufy has transferred all his potential (I say potential because of the collective nature of the work) copyrights to BF. Now in view of the existence of a contract between him and BF, it is possible the heirs can claim something to BF (which still exists) by application of the contract, but it would not be based the contract, not on any intellectual rights on the image. In France only, the protection based on pattern registration and the protection based on sheer artistic creation are cumulative, but the idea that the heirs would get back the ownership of any rights at the end of by any of these two protections is wrong : it is precisely the opposite, at the term of the protection period, there is no more protection. — Racconish Tk 13:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Il reste la question, si la cession des droits pour un temps limité de 50 ans au producteur des dérivés engendre après ces 50 ans avec la péremption du dépôt du dessin aussi la péremption du droit d'auteur sur le dessin et que le dessin soit vraiment tombé dans le domaine public ou si le péremption du dépot libère l'artiste et ses héritiers de façon qu'ils peuvent re-exercer leur droit d'auteur pas encore périmé. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nous sommes sur un projet international, les échanges se font généralement en anglais et on utilise le terme "copyright" pour parler du droit d'auteur en France, il n'y a aucune ambiguïté la dessus. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
PD-Old apparently -FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Almaty Tower
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Kazakhstan. en:Almaty Tower tells that this is a modern building.
- File:Almaty Tower by Night.jpg
- File:Almaty TV-Tower.jpg
- File:Kok Tobe in Almaty.jpg
- File:TV-Turm Almaty - 1.jpg
- File:TV-Turm Almaty - 2.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Please keep it because this building is of a simple shape - nothing copyrightable here / thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.119.159 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-06T19:59:04 (UTC)
- The building looks complex to me. There is no entry for Kazakhstan at [[COM:TOO, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- COM:TOO does not really help here because it is more or less just an incomplete collection of experiences with other images. The TV tower is not too complex, it is just a concrete tube with simple stabilization structures attached to it. The rest are just technological elements like antennas. There is no mentionable creative work on it nor is there any creative or artistic value of it. The mentionable aspect with this tower might be the statical or mathematical works of the civil engineers. Or, stefan4, what exactly do you think is copyrightable on his tower? / thanks
Comment One of those images has been discussed here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kok Tobe in Almaty.jpg. I support the previous arguments, so Keep. --High Contrast (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I support the arguments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:E8436-Almaty-TV-Tower.jpg (same building, different photo), so Delete. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- ??? This image is uncluded in your DR here. Please look again. --High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but in Commons:Deletion requests/File:E8436-Almaty-TV-Tower.jpg the same building was found to be copyrighted, and there is no entry for Kazakhstan at COM:TOO. Without any other information, we should probably treat all buildings from Kazakhstan as copyrightable. The only country where we know that buildings may be below the threshold of originality is France. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- ??? This image is uncluded in your DR here. Please look again. --High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Almaty Tower
[edit]Almaty tower was built in 1983. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period (usually 70 years) of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is considered as a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so therefore 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 Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Unfortunately, Kazakhstan has no Commons-acceptable FoP.
- File:Alma-Ata - panoramio - Vlad Shtelts (Stelz).jpg
- File:Not acting Restaurant in TV tower Koktube.png
- File:The base of the TV tower on Koktube from altitude 70meters.png
- File:TV tower on Koktube.png
- File:Алматинская телевышка 2011-04-23.jpg
- File:Вид на телевышку с верхней точки Кок-Тюбе.JPG
- File:Вышка - panoramio (9).jpg
- File:Телевышка на Кок-Тюбе.JPG
- File:카자흐스탄 알마티 타워 - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 13:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)