Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![100 File:Verkiezingsposter van de SDAP op een muur geplakt, Nederland, 1933. De leuze luidt "De rooden roepen kameraad stemt rood - SFA002010205.jpg](#File:Verkiezingsposter_van_de_SDAP_op_een_muur_geplakt,_Nederland,_1933._De_leuze_luidt_"De_rooden_roepen_kameraad_stemt_rood_-_SFA002010205.jpg){kind=link}
Wrong name of the station, correct is Safonovo, it's created and file is moved Zac Allan (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . A.Savin 08:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Spam, personal information. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Spam, personal information Safiel (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Posted for use on a self promotion/spam user page. Safiel (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Spam, personal information. Safiel (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's look at the indicators, shall we? Public nudity or public urination? Check. Only upload or one of very few uploads by new contributor? Check. Copyright violation? Check. Are you getting the message yet, Commons admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- You know why no one listens to you? Because you just make accusations without any evidence. You say this is a copyvio - got any proof of that? Also, there's no urination in this image. As for your demand, we will not block people for a single copyvio upload. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this being a copyvio. Without it, the community could see this as nothing more than a disruptive nomination. russavia (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete. The picture appears here and here, among other random places on the internet, before it was uploaded on Commons. It took me about as long to figure this out as it took me to write this comment. I've added File:Topless-girl-with-brown-hair.JPG to the nomination, for obvious reasons. --Conti|✉ 10:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per this, the image is found in a higher resolution one another site. Could nominators in future please provide such firm information in their nominations, to make our processes here on Commons more smooth and effortless. russavia (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The latest version of this is a copyright violation (it is an altered image from Playboy). The previous version is out of scope, so there's no point in just deleting the latest revision. I'm only filing this deletion request to ask that all of this user's uploads be deleted. Another one has also been replaced by a copyvio, but none of them are in scope. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: You know, if you want all of a user's images deleted, you really do need to nominate them all. Deleting this one as copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission Motopark (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- What? no OTRS-permission.--DudeTwo IV (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation, we need permission from Adobe to be sent to our OTRS to accept this file PierreSelim (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a derivative of a screenshot, not original work. Moreover, it is modified, so it is not representative of the person. More like personal artwork, out-of-scope. P199 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Attack image - used for BLP violations on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a derivative that it is modified, so it is not representative of the person. Used in violation of BLP to mock person. Keith D (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a PNG,i want this file deleted. DudeTwo IV (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the PNG? --McZusatz (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The gif is of low quality and low resolution McZusatz (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Because is a unecessary file. Reinaldorock (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per uploader's request (also: copyright violation). --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
analoge svg-Datei vorhanden Steffen 962 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader. Leyo 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused logo Ignacio 
(discusión) 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Bob Isherwood 2007 C--92718.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Bob Isherwood 2007 Clio Accepting Award BW.JPG. Froztbyte (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted artwork, no benefit of {{FOP-UK}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like an exact scaled down dupe of our SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 02:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The copyright status of the drawing and text of the plaque are unclear. The Chepstow Society have a history of publications (see http://www.chepstowsociety.co.uk) but these are not released under a free re-use licence, and there is no particular reason to consider this applies to their plaques.
- This DR also applies to:
- File:Chepstow Town Gate history plaque - geograph.org.uk - 476947.jpg
- File:Chepstow Bell Foundry history plaque - geograph.org.uk - 476927.jpg
- File:Chepstow - the Bush Inn plaque - geograph.org.uk - 484093.jpg
- File:Chepstow - Raglan Lodge history plaque - geograph.org.uk - 476960.jpg
- File:Chepstow - Pye Corner Well history plaque - geograph.org.uk - 476939.jpg
- File:Chepstow - Beaufort Square history plaque - geograph.org.uk - 476896.jpg
--Fæ (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. We are not Facebook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. We are not Facebook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Better contrast file available here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macquarie_Fields_Railway_Station_Footbridge.jpg Wykymania (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep the other image is from a different angle, not duplicate. Both files should be kept. MKFI (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Question own work. Copyright. many, many hits on Google images Wouter (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Question own work. Copyright. many, many hits on Google images Wouter (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of This File, without anonymized plates and also misidentified mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission Motopark (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- What? no OTRS-permission.--DudeTwo IV (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
got my reasons 23.29.187.238 09:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which are? Aavindraa (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikia is (usually) not a reliable source in regard to copyright. Also, this is a still/capture from a recent TV series. No evidence for a free license. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, https://www.facebook.com/rene.rudorisch Xgeorg (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Full exif available but: This image already circulated on a Brazilian band site (pt:Of The Archaengel) in 10.2006, documented via screenshots from this blog (.jpg, last modified: 02.2012), where the band thanks Rotting Christ´s drummer and founder Themis for taken part on a tour. The image is still available via Brazilian band´s myspace = .jpg, last modified: 2010. Resuming: Own work doubtful, needs permission. Gunnex (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the subject of the photo but work's copyright's holder is Nicola Giannotti SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the subject of the photo but work's copyright's holder and author is Elisabetta A. Villa SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Inconclusive copyright information. Apparently it is a photo of a photo placed on his home in Drohobycz. In that case, the copyright of that photo is relevant, but information is lacking. —Andrei S. Talk 12:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
insufficient licence Bootyears (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
A registered copyright does not make this a work of Congress. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can I ask the owner of the image to submit an OTRS?--Renzoy16 | (Talk) 15:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course. The whole process is laid out at Commons:OTRS if you're unfamiliar with it. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Very small picture with no EXIF of an unidentified person. Single upload. Doubts on the license and the usefulness of the file. Badzil (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Some private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Some private album picture, unknown persons, out of scope, not used anywhere Motopark (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Outside of Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is out of project scope, fails to meet its criteria. --cyrfaw (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Source is not accessable anymore. Possible copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a company. Rapsar (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Image showing public nudity, outdoor nudity, or public urination? Check. Uploader has uploaded few or no images other than this? Check. Copyright violation? Check. This image is from a Norwegian newspaper. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment -- Does nominator have a genuine policy based justification for this nomination? If not I suggest a speedy close. Nominations that consist of vague suspicions don't seem like a good use of the time of the rest of us. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright violation? Image comes from a Norwegian newspaper. See above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes its generally expected that you will present evidence of such claims. There are a number of Norwegian newspapers. Which one and one what date are you claiming?Geni (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I thought we operated on the assumption of good faith here, but if this helps, I'm happy to oblige. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes its generally expected that you will present evidence of such claims. There are a number of Norwegian newspapers. Which one and one what date are you claiming?Geni (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright violation? Image comes from a Norwegian newspaper. See above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
no valid license / keine gültige Lizenz. 77.184.174.188 17:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
i dont want it delete 69.131.110.218 21:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep It's not yours to delete. Andy Dingley (talk)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Walnut.svg from 2008 (was speedy kept then). --MagnusA (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
123456789101121314151617181910 188.167.42.10 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No rationale, no reason to delete, no evident connection between an anon ISP in Slovakia ("UPC Slovakia, Customers in Bratislava") and this image or any associated IP rights claim over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If the creation time is correct the image is not PD in Germany. At this time Emil Bieber was the only owner of the studio in Berlin. When his father was the photographer we need a source. See Creator:E. Bieber Ras67 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The template is not doing anything special other than adding itself to Category:Pages with template loops Sreejith K (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the uploader John Wilson who is named as the photographer in the watermark? Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to have been sourced from here. No evidence that the author has released the image under an appropriate license AussieLegend (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I contacted the author via Facebook and he agreed to post the picture on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jockel76 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's insufficient. We need evidence of permission. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Please use COM:OTRS to submit evidence of permission. --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this image apply to PD-shape Avron (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Logo of organisation whose English Wikipedia article was declined due to lack of notability. While notability doesn't apply directly on Commons, I'd question its usability given these circumstances. Also, is uploader copyright owner, and are we sure we have Commons-compatible permission? Ubcule (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- This deletion request also includes File:Www.onlinecprcertification.net.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unusable tiny pic. P199 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete far too small to be useful. MKFI (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Online CPR Certification (logo).png Ubcule (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Érico Wouters msg 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Mappa errata: manca la linea A, mentre la linea 3 arriva fino a Susa/Bardonecchia. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Mappa errata: manca la linea A, mentre la linea 3 arriva fino a Susa/Bardonecchia. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused, low-quality logo. Possibly from the uploader's blog of the same name. Senator2029 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Dieses Bild ist eine exakte Kopie von: File:Martin-Luther-Denkmal Wittenberg 2012.jpg Pedelecs (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#South Africa. JuTa 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Likely copvio. Promotional photo for the band. Not uploader's "own work" nor in the "public domain" especially since there are two watermarks on the photo and no EXIF data. Senator2029 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal photograph made in the 1930s or later. Unlikely Public Domain. Unlikely own work by the uploader as stated. No infos available on original author, heirs, and permission. A.Savin 22:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of modern sculpture in Russia (erected 1990s/2000s), no Freedom of Panorama in Russia. A.Savin 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
doubtful own work, see [[1]] AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Scan of an artwork of unknown origin. Not sure it's old enough for PD. Unlikely made by the uploader. No infos on author / permission. A.Savin 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I know the author, if you specify the name of the author is to restore a photo? I shot this photo of the museum АбуУбайда (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Scan of an artwork of unknown origin. Not sure it's old enough for PD. Unlikely made by the uploader. No infos on author / permission. A.Savin 22:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
doubtful own work, see [[2]] or different other websites AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
doubrful own work, see different websites [[3]] AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 23:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a button to link to twitter, per twitter.com/logo. In fact the many "similar but not official" twitter logos on commons are incorrect per their page. heather walls (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Wordmark precludes this being own work, no source, potential copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 23:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Fictional altered version of the Belarussian coat of arms, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, not in use on a userpage, not in project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No scope, french flag with an altered version of the Belarussian coat of arms, Fry1989 eh? 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Japanese flag. Fry1989 eh? 02:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Tongan flag. Fry1989 eh? 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio No FOP for murals in the UK see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural - geograph.org.uk - 297632.jpg for deletion discussion on another photo of this same artwork. In use on English Wikipedia, if this meets fair use criteria, please transfer there. Simonxag (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Following section copied from User talk:Simonxag
Hello. I am not sure if I am more bemused than amused that you have caused this to be deleted. However I would like to know who the artist was if it is actually a copy of an existing artwork. Do you know? Thanks. RSLlGriffith (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I've no idea. People seem to think it's a copy of an old artwork, but it is a modern painting and that's where the copyright problems come from. There is no permission and no freedom of panorama. --Simonxag (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have checked Google Images and failed to find this image of Robert Burns. I remain confused. Are you saying that my photograph of someone's possibly unique work is flagrant copyright? Otherwise you must first know that this artwork is a copy of an existing one - which 'you' don't it seems. I do know who painted it - about ten young people. I could ask Gavin - the leader - where it came from. The young people are also puzzled and are asking for an explanation.RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- End of Copied section
- Comment I don't believe that the mural is a copy of an existing, still-in-copyright, artwork. That would be a further problem: please ask Gavin about it. The copyright that is the problem here is the copyright on the mural: that copyright is owned by Gavin and his friends. What you seem to have picked up on is a red herring from the deletion discussion for another photo of this mural, the false supposition that if this mural is a copy of an old, public domain, image, then it doesn't qualify for copyright protection; it does!
- The reason that this photo seemed a blatant copyright violation (like most photos of murals in the UK) was that there was no indication of permission from the copyright holders (the mural painters). Ask Gavin if he (and his friends!) are willing for you to publish this photo under a free license. Then get Gavin to email OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying that they are OK with the picture and license.
- You also ought to name the mural painters in the description, either individually or with their group identity, see what they say. --Simonxag (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep while we wait for OTRS confirmation --Simonxag (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could explain what OTRS is! Do you not feel that you are going a bit far with your copyright protection? You certainly seem to be joing the ranks of the 'Health and Safety' brigade. The picture has been vandalised - I am told that the glasses were painted on later by persons unknown - do I need their permission as well? I photographed a mural on the beach the other day that was washed away by the tide. Stewart did the artwork - do I need his permission to post this on Wikimedia? You see my point. Yours, more bemused than before, RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the page Commons:OTRS. Sometimes we go too far with copyright protection, but not here. We need to protect the users of our artworks from being sued. A mural is as much copyrighted as any artwork. In the UK you can photograph a sculpture if its on permanent public display but not a graphic work. That's a violation of copyright. If the community group who painted this also think that's silly then suggest they release it under a free license: I think a free license (like attribution share-alike) would be a great idea for most community art projects. The artwork that was washed away by the tide 'does' need the artists permission. Vandalism does not. The Commons accepts most pictures of graffiti because it's very unlikely a court would enforce copyright for a criminal act.--Simonxag (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You can delete it. It will be repainted, the graffiti removed and then posted again on Wikimedia. We will add a copyright symbol to warn future blatant abusers of copyright. You mention 'people' think it's a copy of an existing artwork. Have I missed a discussion forum somewhere as you seem to be the only person involved? RSLlGriffith (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The mural has its own copyright, so to keep it we will need OTRS license from all those who created it. There iis a suggestion in the discussion that they were "young people" -- the permission must come from parents of any who are minors. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Image found posted to a forum (http://www.sherdog.net/forums/69934041-post6.html) on same date as the image was uploaded here. The lack of EXIF information on this version combined with this user's other image uploads makes this image, ownership, permissions and licensing questionable to me. TreyGeek (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Stalker, much? So now I can't post my own pictures I have taken both on Wikipedia and on the forum I used to frequent? Gamezero05 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: That is correct. Our rules require that if you post an image off Commons before, or at about the same time it is uploaded here, then you must provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Superior version already exists here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_train_station_thing.jpg Suggest renaming the file to T-card reader holder or similar name Wykymania (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The images are not identical -- not even the same shaped device. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Originally speedied, but I "denied" that, so that we can undelete this when copyright expires. en:Mark Rothko died in 1970, but when the painting was made I'm not too sure. At worst, this would be an undelete in 2041. At best, I'll leave it open for discussion. russavia (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is from the 1940s, so it would have required notice and renewal. I see no evidence of notice on the painting and there is no renewal in the USCO database. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent and thereby still copyrighted building. As Georgia has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the architect. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Batumi PSH.jpg
- File:TELAVI.jpg
- File:TBILISI PSH.JPG
- File:TbilisiPSH.jpg
- File:TBILISI.JPG
- File:RUSTAVI.jpg
- File:OZURGETI.jpg
- File:MESTIA PSH.jpg
- File:Marneuli PSH.JPG
- File:KVARELI.jpg
- File:Kutaisi PSH.jpg
- File:GurjaaniPSH.jpg
- File:GORI.jpg
- File:AXALTSIKHE.jpg
Uploader will try to get permission, see Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:PSH BATUMI.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:Jakarta_Skyline_Part_2.jpg Albert (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is the other file that should be deleted from WP:ID, not this one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
著作権違反をおかしている可能性があると思ったため。 Tokumeigakarinoaoshima (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)tokumeigakarinoaoshima
Deleted: Yes, it is a DW of the statue . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The source does not provide the given licence. Jerchel (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kannst du das mit der Lizenz ändern? Kenn mich da noch nicht so gut aus. Hab aber den Autor selber auf SSP gefragt, ob ich sein Bild benützen darf- geht vollkommen in Ordnung. --Skylinerider (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Verkiezingsposter van de SDAP op een muur geplakt, Nederland, 1933. De leuze luidt "De rooden roepen kameraad stemt rood - SFA002010205.jpg
[edit]
The photograph has a CC license, but the photographer doesn't hold the rights to the poster Vera (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep work by Nico Schrier covered by {{FoP-Nederland}}. Multichill (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Posters aren't covered by FOP. He died in 1989, so it should be deleted. --Vera (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- They are, read the damn law. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You read it, FOP only applies to objects that are permanently placed in the public space. --Vera (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- And a poster is permanent, it's not that you can get it off without destroying it. Multichill (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, they only need to re-print it. Seriously, this discussion has been held a thousand times before. Would a newspaper suddenly be copyright free if you stuck it to a wall? Would a painting be copyright free during its transportation? No! --Vera (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did you bother reading the link? Because your examples really make no sense at all. Multichill (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, they only need to re-print it. Seriously, this discussion has been held a thousand times before. Would a newspaper suddenly be copyright free if you stuck it to a wall? Would a painting be copyright free during its transportation? No! --Vera (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- And a poster is permanent, it's not that you can get it off without destroying it. Multichill (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You read it, FOP only applies to objects that are permanently placed in the public space. --Vera (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- They are, read the damn law. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Posters aren't covered by FOP. He died in 1989, so it should be deleted. --Vera (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Actually, the truth lies between the two opinions above. Multichill is correct that being stuck to a wall is "permanent", but Vera's example of a newspaper is right on point. Someone who does not own the copyright cannot take a copyrighted work and make it FOP by sticking it to a wall. If that were allowed, then copyright of multiples would have no meaning -- I could take any copyrighted poster to an appropriate country, stick it to a wall, and then reproduce it to my heart's content. Surely that is not the intent of the FOP rules anywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Lebanese flag. Fry1989 eh? 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We do not keep new jpgs of files for which we already have an SVG . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rashidimam343
[edit]Private pictures of user, not project scope.
- File:Rashid Imam 30.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 32.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 31.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 29.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 28.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 27.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 25.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 24.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 26.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 23.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 22.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 21.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 19.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 18.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 20.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 15.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 16.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 17.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 14.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 12.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 13.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 11.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 10.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 9.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 7.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 8.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 6.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 4.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 5.JPG
- File:Rashid Imam 2.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 1.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam 3.JPG
- File:Abba.jpg
- File:Noor Hassan.jpg
- File:Uttar ki bari.jpg
- File:Sohail bhaiya.jpg
- File:Sohail Bhaiya.jpg
- File:Me & jaanu.jpg
- File:Qasid bhaiya.jpg
- File:Johny.jpg
- File:Johny Tonny.jpg
- File:Babba.jpg
- File:Aadil & Babba.jpg
- File:Jaanu.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam.jpg
- File:Rashid Imam.JPG
Martin H. (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. File:P-areafranca.jpg (retouched/cropped) apparently grabbed from a Facebook group (related: all panoramics) and the rest (18 uploads =10 copyvios, +/- 5 digicams in use) grabbed from unknown sources.
- File:Aerea de Franca.jpg
- File:Imagemarea de franca.jpg
- File:Praca de Franca.jpg
- File:P-areafranca.jpg
- File:Nicacio, av Franca.jpg
- File:Obje1.jpg
- File:Obje0.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Boustil images
[edit].jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Boustil-nyesha dreams(the pandora box).jpg
- File:Boustil-full in heart.jpg
- File:Boustil-the possession.jpg
- File:Boustil-skining.jpg
- File:Boustil-esthet.jpg
- File:Boustil-abstract one.jpg
- File:Boustil1.jpg
- File:Boustil2.jpg
- File:Boustil3.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
At best, out of scope personal artwork. Possibly copyvio of artist, would need OTRS to confirm. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leonardojr26 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:POZ 6456.jpg
Files uploaded by Julia.dudo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Подъемник шара.jpg
- File:Подушка пинспоттера.jpg
- File:Колесо пинспоттера.jpg
- File:Бункер пинспоттера.jpg
- File:Грабли пинспоттера.jpg
- File:Дистрибьютор пинспоттера.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The Philippines have a copyright term of life+50 years, so the statues enter the public domain in the Philippines in 2027. In the United States, they enter the public domain 95 years after they were erected. Can be undeleted in 2027 or 95 years after the statues were erected, whichever is later.
Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Recent Comment: if ever FOP is introduced here, for File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg, please restore only the version 21:07, 27 September 2012 by 14macgirl, as the two different versions are blatant copyvios. Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino
[edit]Guillermo Tolentino died in 1976. His works would be public domain in the Philippines in 2027 (1976+51).
- File:09801jfHiyas ng Bulacan Museum Blas Ople Malolos Cityfvf 01.jpg
- File:09801jfHiyas ng Bulacan Museum Blas Ople Malolos Cityfvf 02.jpg
- File:EDS masterguitarist.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 01.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 14.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 17.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 18.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 19.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 20.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 21.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 22.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 23.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 24.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 25.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 26.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 27.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 28.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 29.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 35.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 36.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 37.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 38.JPG
- File:FvfMuseum6730 39.JPG
Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Rosas
[edit]- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png
- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.png
This is not the actual portrait made by Gaetano Descalzi (which is currently uploaded at File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg) but a derivative version of it. It was included in the front page of the 2009 book "Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial", and as you can see both versions differ. The most clear difference are those weird blue eyes. The original is public domain, but the derivative is a new work, subject to its own copyright.
To clarify this, see here. It is the page 208 of a book published by the National Historical Museum of Argentina, edited in 1998, ISBN 950-9517-88-7. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This shows how little you actually know about Rosas: he was blond-haired and had blue eyes. And here is the scan to the cover and inside page from the book I used. Take a look inside the red circle: "Imagen de tapa: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Gaetano Descalzi (pintura). Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco." (Cover picture: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Gaetano Descalzi (painting). Isaac Fernández Blanco Hispanic-American Art Museum). --Lecen (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no need for personal attacks. Have in mind that we are not discussing about Rosas the historical man, but about portraits of Rosas, which are not photos but the way certain artists depict him. Yes, I know what does the book claims, I have it. It is the same book that opens with a long quotation, which is not written verbatim, and does not use footnotes or documents. Who should I trust for the info about a portrait? A divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself, or a book written by an actual museum? By the way, I have visited the museum Isaac Fernández Blanco sometime, and never saw this "portrait" anywhere, but I may check it again one of those days to clarify this if you want. Cambalachero (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... yeah, yeah... go there... and try to learn something about Argentine history. --Lecen (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- And here you can learn more about the museum. Holy shit! What is that picture down at the bottom of the page? Is Calletano Descalzi's painting! Please, someone point it to Cambalachero! --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting: the red around the oval follows the same pattern than in the book cover. I will mantain my distrust unless I see the portrait myself. By the way, your ardor about having this book is completely out of place. You have made disdainful comments about it yourself in the past Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep A slavish copy of a public domain work is itself public domain. The fact that the eyes are bluer is so minor as to be irrelevant. – JBarta (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the eyes are that blue. There was no change to the painting. --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in all fairness, this appears to be the original. The file nominated for deletion appears to be a copy. Judging by a Google image search, there seem to be quite a few copies of that original. As far as the freakishly blue eyes, the version nominated for deletion is the only one. The page you mention shows the version nominated for deletion as the original. Is it really the original? Or did the authors of that web site use an image of a copy? I'd bet my last doughnut they used an image of a copy. Either way, I don't think the copy is sufficiently original as to warrant a separate copyright. It's nothing more than a copy. So the point is, regardless of whether the image nominated for deletion is the original or a copy, it remains in the public domain. – JBarta (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seeing the picture to the right? That's the book from where I scanned the painting. Take a look at it. It says who painted the painting and where is presently located. Could you tell me why the picture you mentioned, which has no source except for the name of the Museo histórico nacional, is the original? Take a look athe file history: it has several different pictures uploaded. Also: Juan Manuel de Rosas had blue eyes. --Lecen (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- You make good points and I don't have a compelling answer. My opinion about which is the original and which is the copy is merely an opinion based on the appearance of the portraits. I stand by my opinion, but can offer nothing concrete that supports one being the original over the other. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you believe the file nominated for deletion is the one actually done by Descalzi and all the others are copies of it? – JBarta (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that. It is Cambalachero that went here screaming that everything else was a copy of one portrait. Perhaps Descalzi made several portraits. I don't know. I'm not a Descalzi expert. What I do know is that I got my painting from a legitimate source while the File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is a Frankenstein. It has no source and it isn't known what is the true picture since several differents ones were uploaded over the same file. Take a look at this link, for example. It is about the Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco. Now go the very bottom of the page. What do you see? The painting I uploaded and the name of the artist who painted. Guess who? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete From my opinion, this is a slight modification to the original picture by Descalzi, but a modification after all. As an intervection on a piece of art, it should have its own copyright. Those so brilliant eyes called my attention at first sight and I guess it will be the same for other persons that take a look to the picture. Fma12 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that. It is Cambalachero that went here screaming that everything else was a copy of one portrait. Perhaps Descalzi made several portraits. I don't know. I'm not a Descalzi expert. What I do know is that I got my painting from a legitimate source while the File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is a Frankenstein. It has no source and it isn't known what is the true picture since several differents ones were uploaded over the same file. Take a look at this link, for example. It is about the Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco. Now go the very bottom of the page. What do you see? The painting I uploaded and the name of the artist who painted. Guess who? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- You make good points and I don't have a compelling answer. My opinion about which is the original and which is the copy is merely an opinion based on the appearance of the portraits. I stand by my opinion, but can offer nothing concrete that supports one being the original over the other. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you believe the file nominated for deletion is the one actually done by Descalzi and all the others are copies of it? – JBarta (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seeing the picture to the right? That's the book from where I scanned the painting. Take a look at it. It says who painted the painting and where is presently located. Could you tell me why the picture you mentioned, which has no source except for the name of the Museo histórico nacional, is the original? Take a look athe file history: it has several different pictures uploaded. Also: Juan Manuel de Rosas had blue eyes. --Lecen (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in all fairness, this appears to be the original. The file nominated for deletion appears to be a copy. Judging by a Google image search, there seem to be quite a few copies of that original. As far as the freakishly blue eyes, the version nominated for deletion is the only one. The page you mention shows the version nominated for deletion as the original. Is it really the original? Or did the authors of that web site use an image of a copy? I'd bet my last doughnut they used an image of a copy. Either way, I don't think the copy is sufficiently original as to warrant a separate copyright. It's nothing more than a copy. So the point is, regardless of whether the image nominated for deletion is the original or a copy, it remains in the public domain. – JBarta (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png and File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.png as these are obviously derived from the image used in the book with a date. Prior to photography, and for some time afterward, there would have been many copies made of paintings of leaders (one for every public office and embassy), so it is not at all unusual to have differing versions, and one often cannot be certain which was the original paradigm. While File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is also likely legitimately in the public domain, its color is definitely off (through yellowed varnish, bad lighting, etc.) and as Lecen pointed out, there is no dating. Astynax (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly the almost 175-year old original painting itself is PD, and the so called "derivative work" is little more than a slavish reproduction without significant (if any) discernible or copyrightable "new original" material. I have removed the offending "red background" from the book's cover design, and as neither the publisher nor the author seems to claim any copyright protection for the painting itself (nor for that matter would they seem to have any defensible grounds to do so) it seems to be PD under every and all applicable legal criteria. Centpacrr (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment, leaning towards Keep Let's try to clear this up a bit: File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg on the one hand and the three variants of File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg on the other hand are cleary different portraits, although showing the person in the same attire. File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is said to be in the "Museo histórico nacional", whereas the "blue-eyed" one is located in the "Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco" according to the book it was taken from. Both are attributed to the painter Gaetano Descalzi, and with the information we have here, it's impossible to say which one is a "derivative" of the other. In any case, File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg etc. doesn't look like a recent derivative specifically created for the book to me, but, as said above - just a different contemporary painting of around 1840. It is entirely possible that Descalzi painted several portraits of Juan Manuel de Rosas. I'm not enough of an art adept to say whether these two paintings might be created by the same artist - the style looks quite a bit different to me. *But* anyway the book where it was used says it's a Descalzi portrait, and IMHO this should be enough evidence to keep the files as PD-old. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. INeverCry 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)