Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Bottom left corner states "Copyright Daniel Lynch /eyevine". Uploader claims to be subject, a Maria Gattas, and doesn't look much like a Daniel to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Note to closing admin - if you delete this, please protect against recreation due to it being a useless file name. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and protected againt recreation. It seems it was protected against recreation, then moved after. Techman224Talk 01:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio. screenshot of television network. ChongDae (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as obvious copyvio. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Obvious Flickrwashing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete Multiple hits on TinEye, apply precautionary principle.--Ianmacm (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/EPNBandaab.jpg Sofree (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio:http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TomadeProtesta00-938x1024.jpg Sofree (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Sachs kia (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Obvious Flickrwashing. The Flickr user's gallery consists of 8 images all uploaded on the same day, 21 September 2012, all with the same title ("Butt Plug") and the same description ("Girl wearing butt plug"). The uploader here is likely to be the Flickr uploader, since a new user is unlikely to be familar with the Flickr uploader. It would be sensible to hardblock this account and run a checkuser to look for other accounts. It would be even more sensible to restrict the use of the Flickr upload bot. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately those files really seem to look like they are copyvios, I did'nt know this when i uploaded them butnow have tagged the fiels as copyvio. Please delete the files and block the flickr account, so that those files can't be uploaded again by mistkae. And NO I'm not identical to the Flickr uploader.$oliton (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why this image was uploaded. Does not seem to be in scope to me. Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Unused text logo of non-notable company with no wiki articles. Overwritten with two blanks by original uploader. INeverCry 06:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of a mathematical expression that should be typeset in TeX. Without knowing the context of this expression, this image may cause confusion. Cmprince (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
_4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(mulDA0026).jpg){kind=link}
_(mulDA0030).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as per above McZusatz (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says he is a subject, but claims own work. The crowded environment makes a self-portrait from a tripod unlikely. 83.254.247.75 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you sign yourself openly as User:Pieter Kuiper if you are going to blatantly abuse the Commons DR process by endlessly trolling me by sockpuppeting through anon IP addresses? Sad, very sad. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep This was my 500,000th edit on Wikimedia Commons. Pieter could not resist the opportunity to try and hurt me through his cyberbullying tactics, the same tactics which have been maliciously hounding me for at least a year whilst at the same time he endlessly snipes, inflames discussion attacking me and makes personal accusations about me off-wiki as "piku". This is my photograph, taken in a public place, at a public event, which in good faith I have released for the public benefit 21 years after it was taken. Pieter has made Commons an unpleasantly hostile environment for other contributors for years. Perhaps Pieter would like to estimate how many editors he can now proudly boast of driving away from Commons?- I am aware that this sort of reply is exactly what Pieter is hoping for. Well done Pieter, I hope that upsetting me is making your Christmas extra special. What else do you and your blocked pals have planned for the season? A head's up would be helpful so I can decide whether it is worth halting my Commons work for the period, as that seems what you are so bloody desperate to achieve, you may as well "win" your hostile cyberbullying campaign. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously not "own work". i just self-nominated one of my own uploads for this reason. :( Badmachine (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello "Badmachine", do you have anything to say about the attack page off-wiki that you are actively maintaining about me, where you label me as a faggot? --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- let's fuck? Badmachine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, no shame at all for calling me a faggot then. Just because you might identify as gay, does not make creating homophobic attack pages about Wikimedians acceptable. --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- let's fuck? Badmachine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hello "Badmachine", do you have anything to say about the attack page off-wiki that you are actively maintaining about me, where you label me as a faggot? --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This totally doesn't look to me as if it was Fae's own work, and I agree with the arguments of the nominator. I would also suggest to Fae that he focuses on the points being raised instead of turning the discussion onto one about him being harassed off-wiki; we are not discussing this subject here. odder (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your opinion is awesome! By which I mean: Keep, out of principle. If this was actually a technical copyright violation you could make me give about seven thousandths of a shit if you held me at gunpoint, and then I would still go home thinking this was fucking stupid. Let them settle this lame personal vendetta somewhere else; Commons should not be a platform for harassment. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your opinion is awesome! By which I mean:
- Comment Looking at the photo it's unlikely the subject pressed the button on the camera, remotely or otherwise. But that doesn't mean the subject hasn't, implicitly or explicitly, been passed the copyright of the photo by whoever did press the button. And as a pre-digital-era photo, it's clearly scanned from a print, so there's at least that "own work" element (for those wondering why it was labelled that way). So if uploader explicitly says he believes the copyright was passed to him, we should accept that statement in good faith. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted. Rd232 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to hear Fae explain the technical details of how the picture was taken. A simple statement that the photographer verbally passed copyright would be sufficient per COM:SCOPE. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier. At the end of the day, Commons should not be allowed to become a hostile environment for contributors. The fact that Pieter Kuiper is repeatedly and persistently using DRs in violation of Blocking policy as a tool to create a hostile environment for his targets—on Wikipediocracy he clearly blames me for his ban—is not a situation that should be encouraged or allowed to continue indefinitely with administrators apparently unable or unwilling to take further action. It has already been going on all bloody year, that's enough surely? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try to ignore the noise; discussing it here helps no-one. There was a real issue here and it's now settled (as far as I'm concerned), so that's a positive outcome to focus on. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The technical detail is that slightly more than 21 years ago, I was at Pride London with a group of friends and I asked one of them to take a shot of me at the event on my camera, probably on one of my cheap 35mm cameras, verbally passing copyright. This photo has not been published and I own the print (which nobody else owns a copy of), the negative and any scans I create, in fact if I can track down the original print in my spare room, I may rescan at a much better resolution than this current version. I could create an OTRS ticket by sending in an email and getting my friend (who happens to still be alive) to email in against an independent professional address, however this seems excessive considering my statement is already here, the intention of the banned user sockpuppeting to create this DR (who is proudly crowing about his achievement here on Wikipediocracy) and I prefer to keep the name of my friend confidential, which OTRS does not and can not guarantee to do. It strikes me that if I said I asked an anonymous stranger take the photo 21 years ago, verbally passing copyright, this would be easier. At the end of the day, Commons should not be allowed to become a hostile environment for contributors. The fact that Pieter Kuiper is repeatedly and persistently using DRs in violation of Blocking policy as a tool to create a hostile environment for his targets—on Wikipediocracy he clearly blames me for his ban—is not a situation that should be encouraged or allowed to continue indefinitely with administrators apparently unable or unwilling to take further action. It has already been going on all bloody year, that's enough surely? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep per my previous comment and uploader's confirmation. A brief note to this effect in the permission field should suffice. General comment: this sort of situation does crop up once in a while - maybe we should construct a template for it. Rd232 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think I can trust a user who claims a picture to be his own work, and only reveals the truth when pressed to do so with a DR nomination. Can we please get an OTRS permission for the picture, and have the matter settled this way once and for all? Thanks. odder (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please, the truth is that this is my photo and my copyright as I said at the beginning. Odder, you are in no doubt that I can use OTRS to provide a ticket for this image, that would just prove that I have sent an email with little more authority than my statement here - if you are now claiming that I am a liar, you should delete all my uploads as lies. This is letting technicalities of fine wording and fine interpretation of copyright become an enabling platform for malicious abuse by a blocked user. Even the majority of people on Wikipediocracy think this is daft. This was my 500,000th edit. If you want to delete it, just how much respect does that mean I am given on this project? This seems like a good object lesson on how blocked users like Pieter Kuiper can have more kudos and authority here than good faith contributors like myself. Topsy turvy madness. --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, the "own work" claim is presumably correct for the scan of the print. It's easy to see how this "own work" statement, although not entirely correct, was made in good faith. We should therefore also accept a clarification in good faith. Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that clarification solves the issue of inaccuracy of the "own work" statement. Anyway, as Rd232 says, "this sort of situation does crop up once in a while" but we need more a guidance page in such situations than just a template. I'm not sure about how complicated is this dealing with portraits of camera owners by friends or strangers, but I'm afraid it won't be very easier than freedom of panorama, de minimis, ans so on.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, that makes sense, so I've started Commons:Transfer of copyright and a thread at VPC, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Transfer_of_copyright. Rd232 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that clarification solves the issue of inaccuracy of the "own work" statement. Anyway, as Rd232 says, "this sort of situation does crop up once in a while" but we need more a guidance page in such situations than just a template. I'm not sure about how complicated is this dealing with portraits of camera owners by friends or strangers, but I'm afraid it won't be very easier than freedom of panorama, de minimis, ans so on.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, frivolous deletion by a user who is willfully violating Commons:Blocking policy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Cirt and RD232. INeverCry 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the responses by the uploader are convincing sadly. If he brought his own camera to the event, why does he not upload more photos of a series? This has the looks of a snapshot of which he was given a print.128.86.184.77 09:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept Disruption nomination, nothing has changed since last time. russavia (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I made an error. But why is this discussion labelled as disruption? If Fae shows the negative strip, everything will be just fine. 128.86.184.77 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Disruptive DR. Harassment IMO. INeverCry 19:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image is marked "all rights reserved" on Flickr. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a reason why it says ©VENEVISION in the top right corner... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
DW of map from fictional work that is still under copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand, it's a map, not a logo. --Jesmar discussion (fr) / discuss (en) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good answer. --Jesmar discussion (fr) / discuss (en) 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2D work, no {{FOP-UK}} for this image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2D, does not benefit from {{FOP-UK}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2D, does not benefit from {{FOP-UK}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally logos of this type are copyright, so this file should not be on the Commons. I have taken a copy for fair use. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This file is outside project scope and may be a copyvio. 68.173.113.106 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The source says that the painter is Boris Jimshirauli (ბორის ჯიმშირაული). Apparently a modren painter. Geagea (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the uploader's only image to Commons and it has no source or license. Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This was originally uploaded to Wikitravel in 2009 by AntoineM, but the photographer is listed as Alex699. Also, the file appeared at http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/France/South/Rhone_Alpes/Lyon/photo521090.htm as early as 2006 (see e.g. the dates in the comments) where it is sourced to "vim42". There is no evidence that "vim42", "Alex699" and "AntoineM" all are the same person. Stefan4 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just delete it. Ypsilon from Finland (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal file Mono 02:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
privacy issues PaliGol (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Related with OTRS:6795612, photo taken from private lands and uploader agrees with the request from the owner.--V.Riullop (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
privacy issues PaliGol (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_3.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Related with OTRS:6795612, photo taken from private lands and uploader agrees with the request from the owner.--V.Riullop (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_3.jpg){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
privacy issues PaliGol (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_4.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Related with OTRS:6795612, photo taken from private lands and uploader agrees with the request from the owner.--V.Riullop (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
privacy issues PaliGol (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Related with OTRS:6795612, photo taken from private lands and uploader agrees with the request from the owner.--V.Riullop (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely that this is the user's original work based on their previous uploads. low-res, high quality photo with no EXIF data Ytoyoda (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced, clear copyright violation Edu Mabbitt (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW; photos on the background wall are surely not work of the uploader and take a too large proportion of the total image to be de minimis. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
not own work by uploader; http://tortosaantiga.blogspot.de/2010/10/pont-colgant-damunt-lo-riu-ebre.html, depending on photographer, might be or become PD-old. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Depicted sculpture obviously a recent work and thereby still copyrighted. Though the file is neither categorized nor has any information about city or country, it's likely located in a country of the former Soviet Union, which all have no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright. Thereby, the photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploading to twitter is insufficient to consider an image PD-author. Lymantria (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Fade at top and bottom, low res, no metadata - all make own work doubtful. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"De foto is rechtenvrij te gebruiken in relatie tot de Energieraad." is a typical press photo release wording and generally not considered to be free enough. Should be checked by a dutch-native speaker. Uploader might consider requesting a permission from the company. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Same problem with File:101001-vdHagen.jpg.
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As the Philippine copyright law has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this image violates the copyright of the photographer of the prominent portrait in the middle. I doubt the portrait can be viewed as being de minimis. One might consider either blanking out of the portrait or cropping it away. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
wrong license, possible copyvio: Original artwork of the 1927 movie (cf. en:File:Metropolisposter.jpg), maybe edited by the uploader, but certainly not "own work" or copyrighted by the uploader. As the picture is less than 100 years old, we must assume this is still copyrighted material unless proven otherwise. FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- no objections ... like to quickly delete... --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative photo of a modern (erected in the 1990s) equestrian sculpture. No Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Taken from private blog: [1], no info on true author / permission. A.Savin 10:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a portrait made in the 1970s or 1980s. Unlikely own photo by the uploader. No info on true author or permission. A.Savin 11:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This picture is not created by acrofan but CJ E&M, so it may be under exclusive copyright. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This picture is not created by acrofan but CJ E&M, so it may be under exclusive copyright. (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Previously published (even with lower res and missing exif) via http://www.flickr.com/photos/tula_7755/6988606595/ (2006/08.2010, by Flickr user "Tula_tulipa"). Gunnex (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The author is Giorgi Gegechkori (გიორგი გეგეჭკორი), Modern artist (1, 2). Geagea (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portlandia.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_(mulDA0026).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(mulDA0026).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portlandia.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_(mulDA0026).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_(mulDA0026).jpg){kind=link}
_(mulDA0030).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(mulDA0030).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portlandia.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
_(mulDA0030).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
_(mulDA0030).jpg){kind=link}
It is Miguel chevalier's digital art work. At glance, I cannot find any evidence of public place. If so, as far as I know, France don't permit FOP. I think it is Copyvio. Sotiale (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It is Miguel chevalier's digital art work. At glance, I cannot find any evidence of public place. If so, as far as I know, France don't permit FOP. I think it is Copyvio. Sotiale (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It is Miguel chevalier's digital art work. As far as I know, France don't permit FOP. I think it is Copyvio. Sotiale (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It is Miguel chevalier's digital art work. At glance, I cannot find any evidence of public place. If so, as far as I know, France don't permit FOP. I think it is Copyvio. Plus, this file deleted at kowiki. Sotiale (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It is Miguel chevalier's digital art work. As far as I know, France don't permit FOP. I think it is Copyvio. Plus, this file deleted at kowiki. Sotiale (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Two-dimensional non-free mural located in the UK. Freedom of panorama does not extend to 2D works in the UK unless they are works of artistic craftsmanship (which this isn't). Not illegal graffiti but a mural arranged in conjunction with the city. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The image doesn't depict detail of a specific mural, but is intended as a general streetscape scene depicting pedestrians and road users within the artwork. Doesn't the incidental inclusion of copyrighted 2D public art qualify as de minimis usage? I reckon that the non-free parts of image constitute approximately 1/4 of the image area. -- Trevj (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Having a closer read of the intro to De minimis, I now note that if the artwork "forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [artwork], there is likely to be copyright infringement". So I guess that changes my perception. It would appear that no kind of crop's going to satisfy this. -- Trevj (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) I'm now considering the people to the lower left of the photo (the male gazing up at the mural on the brickwork obscured by the pedestrian bridge with the whale on). If I'd been more aware of the issues, I'd have tried to capture someone's gaze, with blurred artwork in the background... but the practicalities surrounding that sort of composition are probably beyond my current capabilities as an amateur. -- Trevj (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion How about a narrow crop showing the pedestrians and cyclist viewing/photographing the artwork? What about the green face murals? Could they perhaps be blurred? The article is about the artwork as a whole and I feel strongly that it's of encyclopedic value to be able to depict it being viewed. -- Trevj (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I think you must face the fact that the only things that is really interesting in this image are the three murals. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free work which is not the Flickr user's work to license. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a game. Rapsar (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from a movie. Rapsar (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OTRS ticket 2012121310006022 (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=6797252) indicates that this image is not copyrighted to the NOAA, but is instead used by them with the permission of Bob Campbell of Grand Ledge Michigan. It was not taken by an NOAA employee, and therefore may not be public domain. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- A poster at en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 December 12#Edmund Fitzgerald photo said he took the picture and has copyright. He wrote "Could you take the picture off your site or take away the Public Domain part and credit to Bob Campbell Grand Ledge Michigan". He didn't clarify which license he would allow. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information provided to verify that {{PD-Egypt}} actually applies. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright www.lagordolasque.com Erikk (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright www.lagordolasque.com Erikk (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright www.lagordolasque.com Erikk (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Per Exif: ©2007 Bob Mahoney, all rights reserved Denniss (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- see source: file:Nelly.jpg from flickr. matanya • talk 22:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know the Flickr source but the files there rarely have valid/complete Exif data. This account smells a bit like flickrwashing. --Denniss (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Promotional content. Photo was used on page created by the individual in the picture in a self-promoting Wikipedia page that has since been rejected. DataMiner9901 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from https://www.meaningfulmedicine.org/dr-bosworth Wintonian (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. Ras67 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. Ras67 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Its not his own work, probably a copyright violation, due to its wide spread over the Web. For instance here. Ras67 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Its not his own work, probably a copyright violation, due to its wide spread over the Web. Ras67 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Attack image, original work is unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Savhñ 18:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. Jespinos (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
bad jped, now with vector version available, all occurences replaced Frédéric (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe the uploader is the copyright holder. The image can be seen at http://www.newlifefp.org/the_arts_2011_50.html. Per w:Talk:Joseph_Martin_(composer) the uploader seems to be a high school student preparing an article on this guy for an assignment. Noiratsi (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Same image found in same high resolution on this 2011 website: http://www.americancheerleader.com/2011/08/authors-with-spirit-amanda-havard/. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
mauvaise qualité Eberthoud (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
White borders to right and below image, poor quality, looks like it might be a magazine scan. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Photo was uploaded by the creator of the BLP and its listed as his/her "own work". However, it looks like a professional photo with strange coloring, that leads me to think its either really old (70's) or it it was taken from a magazine or something. Its a bit of a stretch to think that this editor is pro photographer, is a dance fan, was at this event, knows who Jeffrey H. Smith is and took the photo him/herself and has kept it all these years. Its possible but seems unlikely to me. I think what is more likely is that the submitter made a reproduction and is not aware that that is not permitted under WP copyright guidelines. I know I made the same innocent mistake once. I would also suggest deletion.Keithbob (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Further checking of uploader's images finds many other blatant copyright violations Ronhjones (Talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
copy of president.al Albinfo (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
copy of president.al Albinfo (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image - also possible copyvio per source/author info INeverCry 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
small low-quality duplicate of File:Local de ensayo equipado.jpg INeverCry 21:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The image lacks metadata, apparently is an image that was part of a set of photographs albumnes you can see in this link, the original image can be found at this link which is also higher resolution. You can find a similar image on the website of the singer. -Erick- Talk 21:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image/logo INeverCry 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image/artwork INeverCry 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 22:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität, unscharf. Demnächst werde ich weitere Bilder vom Römerberg von mir hochladen. Pedelecs (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
copy of File:Westline.jpg Kattenkruid (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
not "own work". this was uploaded when i was even more clueless about licensing and rights than i am now. sorry to see it go, but there is no license for "the guy who took this is probably dead". Badmachine (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Redundant. I've uploaded a copy with much higher resolution. WQUlrich (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Is this person famous? What purpose does this image serve within scope? It also looks like a re-photographed image, possibly taken close up (note that user has also uploaded another possible copyvio). Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution image with borderline illegible small text renders usefulness very questionable Ubcule (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
no permission, not simple enough for Commons and the given template Polarlys (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per my comment at itu (talk · contribs)'s talk page. mabdul 15:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was uploaded with a Flickr tag, but it is asserted as a 'personal photo' by Marcia Angle. There is no Flickr link. There is insufficient information to determine the source, author, and permission (license) of this image. Mono 02:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by Paul Landowski (1875-1961), to be undelete in 2032 PierreSelim (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong coat of arms and old residue from the German Graphic Lab, see the first version, correct version File:DEU Krefeld COA.svg. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- No objections from my side. --dbenzhuser (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader hasn't specified why {{PD-Lebanon}} applies. The template lists four different scenarios:
- It is an anonymous work or pseudonymous work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)
The photo is credited to Charle Bousaba, so it is not anonymous. Do we have any reason to assume that Charle Bousaba is a pseudonym for someone else?
- It is a collective or audiovisual work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)
Clearly not an audiovisual work. Normally, only one photographer would be involved in the creation of a photo, so I don't see why this would be a collective work.
- It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author)
It does not say when Charle Bousaba died, but the man on the photo died in 1988. If the photo was taken at the end of the life of the subject of the photo, then the photographer can impossibly have been dead for at least 50 years. Also, US law requires death before 1946; otherwise, the photo is copyrighted for 95 years since publication in the United States. The subject of the photo was born in 1924 and he could easily be more than 21 years on the photo, so it is not even clear that the photo was taken before 1946. Of course, the photo can't have been taken after the photographer died.
- It is one of "laws, legislative decrees, decrees and decisions issued by all public authorities and official translations thereof"
Obviously, this doesn't apply.
However, something appears to be wrong with the template. At two places, it is suggested that a work might be published before it is created, but that is impossible. Presumably, the one who wrote the template meant something else, unclear what. Stefan4 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Flag of Pavlodar.svg is used in all present pages. Last one - in de-wiki was changed into .svg by me Zac Allan (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not generally delete raster images with a long history even if the svg image exists. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio:http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/EPNBandaab.jpg Sofree (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hola, me pueden explicar por qué esta foto ha sido solicitada para borrarse? cuál es el problema? Esta foto es la que creo que sería adecuada para su artículo de wikipedia, por lo que me interesaría aclarar esto. Gracias--Jucar (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- La imagen fue obtenida de la página del Gobierno de la República Mexicana. Necesitas probar que *tú* eres el autor de la imagen y no estas violando derechos de autor, de otra manera el "ser adecuado" es trivial para Wikimedia Inc., ya que dichas violaciones no son toleradas. Tbhotch™ 05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hola, me pueden explicar por qué esta foto ha sido solicitada para borrarse? cuál es el problema? Esta foto es la que creo que sería adecuada para su artículo de wikipedia, por lo que me interesaría aclarar esto. Gracias--Jucar (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, unless Jucar proves that this work was made by him. Tbhotch™ 05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, can we consider the deletion of File:EPN gobernador2.jpg and File:EPN banda.jpg. Considering that "EPN banda abajo.jpg" and File:EPN bandera.jpg have no permission, they should be copyvios as well. Tbhotch™ 06:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Concerns:
- File:Claude Dailly - Bagnols sur Cèze - P1240408.jpg.
- File:Claude Dailly - Bagnols sur Cèze - P1240409.jpg.
- File:Claude Dailly - Bagnols sur Cèze - P1240407.jpg.
The person in the photo is not the person identified by the filename but a non notable person Esby (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I got a message on my user page [2] asking for deletion of one photo; It is very possible that I made a mistake in identifying the person. Since the photographied person is not notable (no hits on google for Claude Dailly not Roumanille (the one of the photo not the one dead in 1891), we got no reason to keep it. Esby (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems this photo was taken without the consent of the portraied person. Also disputable is the source where this picture came from. The flickr user has free licensed pictures in his galleries where he is probably not the rights owner. Is he the rights owner of this photo? It is also disputable where this picture should find usage. In the article Secret photography? Friechtle (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The same problem here: File:Blonde 1.jpg, File:Blonde 2.jpg, File:Blonde 3.jpg, File:Blonde 4.jpg --Friechtle (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr account is a collection of images of large-breasted women snapped up from the web. please place account on banned Flickr upload list. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is unused, so I'd say that it is out of scope.
The licence used, {{PD-Sweden-URL9}}, only applies to text, but this is not text. I can't tell if the image might be below the threshold of originality or not, but as it seems to be out of scope anyway, there's little need to keep it. Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the license.
- Diagrams are, if anything, below the threshold of originality. It seems redundant to say that images are not out of scope because they are as yet unused. --Jonund (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: THe fact that it is not used does not prove that it is out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The file is unused. It's in bitmap format. And on top of that the data in it is faked so it's not useable for anything really. Thus the file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. // Liftarn (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think the data is faked? --Jonund (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- 1) It says so right in the description ("Estimation based on the overrepresentation in 1985-1989") and the source used (Affes statistikblogg) is infamous for faking statistics.[3][4] // Liftarn (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is unused, so I'd say that it is out of scope.
The licence used, {{PD-Sweden-URL9}}, only applies to text, but this is not text. I can't tell if the image might be below the threshold of originality or not, but as it seems to be out of scope anyway, there's little need to keep it. Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the license.
- Diagrams are, if anything, below the threshold of originality. It seems redundant to say that images are not out of scope because they are as yet unused. --Jonund (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: THe fact that the image is unused does not show that it is out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The file is unused. It's in bitmap format. And on top of that the data in it is faked so it's not useable for anything really. Thus the file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. // Liftarn (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think the data is faked? --Jonund (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- 1) It says so right in the description ("Estimation based on the overrepresentation in 1985-1989") and the source used (Affes statistikblogg) is infamous for faking statistics.[5][6] // Liftarn (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Commons doesn't need to play webhost for racist propaganda. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - blurry - low quality - also possible copyvio INeverCry 20:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Poonam Chand Sahu Poonamchand Sahu (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The License is obviously wrong. This image is property of the Istituto Luce (http://www.archivioluce.com), I don't think that they allow free use. Alex2006 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- License may be wrong or not, not easy without knowing the author. But it should fall under {{PD-Italy}} otherwise it may have to be re-uploaded to en wiki under seized property act. --Denniss (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Denniss. For me it falls under {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}. --Viscontino (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Question: does this mean that we can upload all the pictures of the Istituto Luce concerning the Fascist period? Alex2006 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking about the same thing... and I think yes, but honestly I cannot guarantee that. We should ask to someone who knows better this kind of issues. --Viscontino (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Question: does this mean that we can upload all the pictures of the Istituto Luce concerning the Fascist period? Alex2006 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Denniss. For me it falls under {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}. --Viscontino (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually the only reason why I asked to delete this picture was to clarify this issue :-) I find highly suspicious that with 300.000 picture in the LVCE Archive, on commons we have only one file (now 2, after the one which I uploaded this morning :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pjahr as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: logo, copyrighted INeverCry 19:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation of a Polish football team logo. ThePolish 08:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- pl: Delete To nie jest "PD-textlogo" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- eo: Delete Tio ne estas "PD-textlogo" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- en: Delete Is it not "PD-textlogo" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR. Clearly bellow the COM:TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: It is registered tradmark of Stowarzyszenie Piłkarskie Zawisza and it is not on any of free licence, so it cannot be use without a permission. Nowadays all logos are simple and easy to replicate using graphic software, but it should not be a reason for copyrights violations. Blackfish (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Threshold of originality (Wymóg_oryginalności) is a legal statement present in the Copyright Laws of the most countries. When a logo is bellow the TOO (like this), regardles if is a Registered Trademark (Trademark != Copyright). In cases of obvious simplicity of the logo, only a Polish Court should decide if this simple logo is copyvio or not. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a simple logo. For example, I cannot recreate that in computer. Taivo (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shuenlith sharif (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files with promotional character. Probably out of project scope.
GeorgHH • talk 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All out of scope Techman224Talk 00:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Екатерина137 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution images, one of them watermarked - doubtful authorship.
- File:Морская свинка.jpg
- File:Морская Свинка.jpg
- File:Нерест петушка.jpeg
- File:0 57bc2 6fcb3904 XXL.jpeg
Art-top (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
NoFOPinPhilippinesImages UserAlecxacahing
[edit]- File:WTNaga HMMM A45.jpg
- File:WTNaga HMMM B41.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM B41b.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A11.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A10.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A10a.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A6.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A22.JPG
- File:WTNaga HMMM A22a.JPG
All statues and buildings depicted in these images, seem to be recent and thereby still copyrighted works of art. (Besides, in none of the descriptions the original artist has been mentioned and the uploader never replied to my questions about the artist's names and year of istallation.) Regrettably, The Philippines' copyright law has no FOP exemption from copyright. Thereby, these images violate the copyright of the original artists. Though, this conclusion has once been challenged by the President of Wikimedia Philippines User:Sky Harbor in Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTNaga HMMM A11.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing/inconsistent EXIF (Photographer = "Luciana" = User:Lo.casag?). All further uploads by this user = copyvios.
Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No reason to presume own work by the uploader. Low resolution, missing EXIF, files are available on several external websites.
- File:X f27786a2.jpg
- File:Z 0bd5c3feь.jpg
- File:OxtQ yRJj6I.jpg
- File:KsZP9 PzqJI.jpg
- File:LdHoIkrLeYY.jpg
- File:4pESiSYpwc.jpg
- File:Gp MC.jpg
A.Savin 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Lots of scans of artwork created by Bystrushkin who died in 1977. Additionally, a bunch of scanned personal portraits made in the 1960s-1980s. All definitely needs permission from the heirs.
- File:Gorodok 1938.jpg
- File:Zimushka-zima.jpg
- File:Ледовое побоище.tif
- File:Великая Отечественная война 1941-1945 годы..tif
- File:Гангутское сражение.tif
- File:Trattoria Ponte Vecchio.jpg
- File:Kak1.jpg
- File:Devsvedrami.jpg
- File:Bistrplasuni.jpg
- File:Bistrushkin.jpg
- File:Zimachaynik1.jpg
- File:Sirnitsa.jpg
- File:Shtoff.jpg
- File:Zolpetushok.jpg
- File:Chaisadko.jpg
- File:Vinograd.jpg
- File:Kak.jpg
- File:Porcelainlamp.JPG
- File:Ludmilasadko.JPG
- File:Shama.jpg
- File:Golubi.JPG
- File:Светильник "Рыбка".JPG
- File:Быструшкин Бронислав Дмитриевич.jpg
A.Savin 11:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Metsur Volde (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scans of 1980s/1990s photographs. Unlikely taken by the uploader. No info on true author(s) or permission.
A.Savin 11:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Looks like a crop from unknown source.
Gunnex (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. In 2008 the user was 14 years old (user page in ptwiki) so "own works" from 1953, 1998, 2003, 1958 and 2003 might be quite unrealistic. Furthermore: File:Mirante do Paranapanema SP.jpg + File:Mirante do Paranapanema 2003.jpg were apparently grabbed from a DVD ("50 Anos de Historia", 50 years of history) with unknown copyright issues.
- File:Mirante do Paranapanema 1953.jpg
- File:Cuiaba paulista.jpg
- File:Mirante do Paranapanema SP.jpg
- File:Estação de Ferro de Mirante do Paranapanema 1958.JPG
- File:Mirante do Paranapanema 2003.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Low-resolution PNG files with questionable authorship claims based on the uploader's history of uploading low quality PNG versions of other people's works found on the Internet and falsely claiming to be the author (e.g. File:Entrada mazatan.png, which was taken from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iF7je2RaXlU/SBkkFtBb99I/AAAAAAAAAJw/yI1GLPkXmOE/s1600/IMG_5474.JPG, which in turn appears on http://themazateco.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-soy-de-mazatn-mazatn-es-mo.html, and File:Paso de la amada figurine.PNG, which was also falsely claimed to be the uploader's own work).
- File:Virgen Margarita Concepción SR.png
- File:Parque mazatan.png
- File:Parque mazatan nublado.png
- File:Iglesia mazatan.png
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- El primer archivo yo tomé la fotografía. El segundo archivo la licencia es libre, pues la página donde según está esta foto tampoco es dueña de ésta y lo mismo pasa con el tercer y el cuarto archivo. Si desean un escrito por el autor de estas fotografías se les hará llegar. Sólo díganmelo. --Baquides (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Possible copyvio, notwithstanding the uploader's comment. Low resolution, probably out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files ulpoaded by User:Cordhose
[edit]Cordhose (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Very low resolution files from different cameras, I tend to doubt the "own work" claim.
- File:Sinsheim quer.jpg
- File:Colt Kofferraum.jpg
- File:RLS Cockpit.jpg looks like a cropped version of this promotional image
The EXIF data of the following ones mention Fabian H. Silberzahn Stuttgart (owner of a professional photo studio, see [7]) as the photographer, but at File:Sinsheim quer.jpg Sebastian Schmidt is given as the real name of the user.
- File:JBL.jpg
- File:Alpine-Radio.jpg
- File:Zenec.jpg
- File:Helix Competition SPXL 12.jpg
- File:Ground Zero GZPA 2.20000 SPL.jpg
- File:Radical RA 16 RF.jpg
All in all, this looks more than just a bit "fishy" to me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FJAJuninho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Isandra y yo de nuevo.jpg
- File:En el trabajo con Isandra.jpg
- File:Miren mi tatuaje.jpg
- File:Los chicos sexys del 2013.jpg
- File:Mi sexy hermana y yo.jpg
- File:Ramón en la playa.jpg
- File:Antuanet la modelo.jpg
- File:Antuanet y Ramón.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MaryJaneGirls100 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Fgdfgzdfg.jpg
- File:Sdgdhfghxdfg.jpg
- File:Dgfgdfhfd.jpg
- File:Fgfhdfgdfh.jpg
- File:Fjghhfhghdhfhg.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DarkForest (talk · contribs)
[edit]No metadata, various results on google. Unlikely to be own work.
Savhñ 18:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, JeremyA (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DaleHolmesfa (talk · contribs)
[edit]likely copyvios - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 21:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - also 2 questionably licensed flags and an out of scope unused profile pic
- File:Artesana.jpg
- File:Artesanal.jpg
- File:Viviendasj.jpg
- File:Cerrodemaco.jpg
- File:Arroyosj.jpg
- File:Hidrografiasanja.jpg
- File:Poblacionsanja.jpg
- File:SanJacinto.png
- File:EscudoSanJacinto.png
- File:BanderaSanJacinto.png
- File:Dereikis Reyes.jpg
INeverCry 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - also possible copyvios as there's no EXIF and the uploader seems to be the subject of these images so "own work" may be doubtful
INeverCry 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tony robes fortes (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Jorencion.jpg
- File:Sarah ind.jpg
- File:Telele.jpg
- File:Tostón.jpg
- File:Engrupo.jpg
- File:Gordito pintando.jpg
- File:Galeriasinteriores.jpg
- File:Dibujoaldeano.jpg
- File:Ediciochachi.jpg
- File:Voluntas 2003.jpg
- File:Comiendo estaba.jpg
- File:Voluntas.jpg
- File:Traban.jpg
- File:Gordi pintando.jpg
- File:Hormigonera asesina.jpg
- File:Jorge en lapared.jpg
- File:Hierros.jpg
- File:Dedos y pies de barro.jpg
- File:Encantapajaros.jpg
- File:Exterior del local.jpg
- File:La aldeal del portillo.jpg
- File:Visata lateral.jpg
- File:Ruinoso estado 1.jpg
- File:Ruinas1.jpg
INeverCry 21:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logos - only uploads of user
INeverCry 21:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small image with no EXIF and COM:DW photo of sculpture
INeverCry 21:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 21:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Commons says that this was made by the Wikivoyage uploader, but this information is not present on Wikivoyage. The uploader has uploaded many images which are attributed to other people (e.g. Mickaël G, Vincent Bloch, tompagenet, so it would be unwise to assume own work unless there is an explicit statement saying so. Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given the multiple revisions, the attempt to use the "Wikivoyage style" with regards to colors and whatnot, the fact that it is purpose drawn for Wikivoyage (in providing a personal approach to dividing the city), and the messy "workshop" SVG, I think it's pretty safe to say this was his own work. The selection of streets to display also does not match any other maps or mapping services I can find online, so that looks to be his personal editorial decision. --Peter Talk 20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Peterfitzgerald. INeverCry 18:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons says that this was made by the Wikivoyage uploader, but this information is not present on Wikivoyage. The uploader has uploaded many images which are attributed to other people (e.g. Mickaël G, Vincent Bloch, tompagenet), so it would be unwise to assume own work unless there is an explicit statement saying so. Stefan4 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given the multiple revisions, the attempt to use the "Wikivoyage style" with regards to colors and whatnot, the fact that it is purpose drawn for Wikivoyage (in providing a personal approach to dividing the city), and the messy "workshop" SVG, I think it's pretty safe to say this was his own work. The selection of streets to display also does not match any other maps or mapping services I can find online, so that looks to be his personal editorial decision. --Peter Talk 20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Peterfitzgerald. INeverCry 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons says that this was made by the Wikivoyage uploader, but this information is not present on Wikivoyage. The uploader has uploaded many images which are attributed to other people (e.g. Mickaël G, Vincent Bloch, tompagenet), so it would be unwise to assume own work unless there is an explicit statement saying so. Stefan4 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given the multiple revisions, the attempt to use the "Wikivoyage style" with regards to colors and whatnot, the fact that it is purpose drawn for Wikivoyage (in providing a personal approach to dividing the city), and the messy "workshop" SVG, I think it's pretty safe to say this was his own work. The selection of streets to display also does not match any other maps or mapping services I can find online, so that looks to be his personal editorial decision. --Peter Talk 20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Peterfitzgerald. INeverCry 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a map. The template {{PD-Sweden-URL9}} specifically excludes maps. Stefan4 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- No! It's not a map but a plan or zoning (stadsplan, detaljplan, officiell handling). Please learn the difference between zoning and map. "PD-Sweden-URL9" fits perfect! --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Offentlig handling" = anyone has the right to access the document. However, this does not mean that the document can be used in any context. For example, if you sue someone for copyright infringement, anyone can use the evidence in an article about the court proceedings, but you can usually not use the evidence in other contexts. In this case, I assume that you can use the drawing in articles about city planning in Gamla stan (e.g. sv:Stadsplanering i Gamla stan) but not for general guidance for helping someone to find out how to get to a particular address in Gamla stan. It is a kind of limited fair use and thus insufficient for Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jag tar det på svenska. Då är "PD-Sweden-URL9" vilseledande eftersom "map" är inte samma sak som "detaljplan" eller "stadsplan" (jag upprepar mig). En detaljplan är alltid en serie av handlingar, skrivna och ritade. Menar du att de skrivna handlingar är ok att ladda upp men inte de ritade? Jag som arkitekt ritar inga "kartor" utan "planer" det är en stor skillnad. Kartor visar ett befintligt geografiskt utseende, planer däremot ett framtida "planerat" utseende, som inte behöver nödvändigtvis realiseras om ingen bygger det som detaljplanen tillåter. Jag har även laddat upp äldre stadsplaner signerade Per Olof Hallman (död 1941) det är tydligen ok. Men jag ser ingen skillnad till dagens detaljplaner. I licensen står bl.a. ... or report issued by a Swedish public authority (svensk myndighet)... och det passar exakt för en detaljplan. Det finns dock ett undantag som jag respekterar och det är material som bifogas en detaljplan och som inte är producerat av myndigheten utan exempelvis av ett privat arkitektkontor, en metod som blir allt vanligare. Där gäller upphovsmannens upphovsrätt. Under "maps" förstår jag kartor utgivna av exempelvis Lantmäteriet, sådana laddar jag inte upp. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Offentlig handling" = anyone has the right to access the document. However, this does not mean that the document can be used in any context. For example, if you sue someone for copyright infringement, anyone can use the evidence in an article about the court proceedings, but you can usually not use the evidence in other contexts. In this case, I assume that you can use the drawing in articles about city planning in Gamla stan (e.g. sv:Stadsplanering i Gamla stan) but not for general guidance for helping someone to find out how to get to a particular address in Gamla stan. It is a kind of limited fair use and thus insufficient for Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Tillägg
Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk:
9 § Upphovsrätt gäller inte till
1. författningar,
2. beslut av myndigheter,
3. yttranden av svenska myndigheter och
4. officiella översättningar av sådant som avses i 1-3.
Upphovsrätt gäller dock till verk vilka ingår i en handling som avses i första stycket och är av följande slag:
1. kartor,
2. alster av bildkonst,
3. musikaliska verk eller
4. diktverk.
En gång till: detaljplaner är inga "kartor" och faller därför under "beslut av myndigheter" där upphovsrätt inte gäller.
--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jag tycker att det ser ut som en karta. Även Wikipedia och Solna stad kallar det för en karta:
- Wikipedia: "Plankarta med bestämmelser"
- Solna stad: "En detaljplan är en karta [...]" --Stefan4 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Och andra kommuner uttrycker sig på annat sätt, exempelvis Falun [8]: "En detaljplan (DP) är ett juridiskt bindande kontrakt mellan kommunen, markägarna och grannarna..."
- Eller Habo kommun [9]: "En detaljplan är ett dokument som talar om hur mark- och vattenområden får användas inom ett visst område..."
- Som jag sade tidigare så består en detaljplan av en rad handlingar, nämligen en plankarta, en planbeskrivning och en genomförandebeskrivning (så står det även i WP). Ibland ingår även en illustrationskarta, program och/eller miljökonsekvensbeskrivning. Märk väl här talas om ”plan”karta respektive ”illustrations”karta. Det är naturligtvis en sorts ”karta”, där man kan se gator och kvarter uppifrån. Men jag är inte så säker som du att detta dokument är samma sak som den ”karta” som avses i "PD-Sweden-URL9". Dåvarande stadsarkitekt i Stockholm Per Kallstenius bekräftade för några år sedan för mig att material producerat av stadsbyggnadskontoret är dokument där upphovsrätt inte gäller.
- Filen "Stadsplan Pl 7800 Gamla stan.jpg" visar en stadsplan från 1978 över "Staden Mellan Broarna" och syftet med planen var att illustrera vilka kvarter skulle bli q-märkta (blåmärkta) och bli "Reservat för kulturhistorisk värdefull bebyggelse". Visst kan man ta en kopia på denna "plankarta" och trava runt i Gamla stan, men det är ju inte tanken. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Sweden undersöker f.n. med Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor hur rättsläget är. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Då är det kanske bäst att vänta tills detta blivit utrett. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ja, det tycker jag också, därför lade jag in en blänkare om pågående utredning här. Men frågan har tydligen ingen högre prioritet på Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor och ett resultat kan dröja. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nu har tydligen filen raderats. Om stadsbyggnadskontoret vid något senare tillfälle säger att bilden är fri, får du väl vända dig till till COM:UR istället. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ja, det tycker jag också, därför lade jag in en blänkare om pågående utredning här. Men frågan har tydligen ingen högre prioritet på Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor och ett resultat kan dröja. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Då är det kanske bäst att vänta tills detta blivit utrett. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Sweden undersöker f.n. med Stockholms stadsbyggnadskontor hur rättsläget är. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily as "no source". JuTa 01:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
