Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The portrait at the right is by en:Alexander Shervashidze, who died 1968. 95.195.135.213 00:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be from a book first published in the US in 1922, which would seem to put this in the public domain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Image is public domain. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
duplicate file Mjrmtg (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate; this can be speedied. russavia (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Empty, singular - Hyacinth (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
unknown photographer with © Copyright 2000-2012 MISSISSIPPI HALL OF FAME AND MUSEUM. All rights reserved on the given source AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
there is no evidence of permission from http://www.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=201201060853221001 Puramyun31 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
single upload, doubtful own work as found on different websites with copyright like [[1]] AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. This is a cropped version of a larger image taken from the internet. See here for example. The Flickr uploader is unlikely to have been the original photographer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious issue. Use {{Copyvio}} instead in future. High Contrast (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: uploaded in March 2012 but is used here: http://oko-planet.su/first/71443-rossiya-dolzhna-sosredotochitsya.html (November 2011). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy McZusatz (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Old Soviet photography, cannot be PD yet, unlikely taken by the uploader, no infos on permission. A.Savin 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This is pre-soviet photography of Russian Empire age.
Kept: I withdraw this request. A.Savin 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität Niklas Viebrock (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, obvious copyvio (Urheberrechtsverletzung). XenonX3 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of copyrighted content. The animation sequence from http://www.makesweet.com/mixer/my-flag has at least been around since 2010 on some of the images located on Google. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the image. You can delete the older version. I generally dislike this idea to try to bypass the deletion by uploading a new image, but unfortunately the image is being used in multiple barnstars (if it is an article, then I can simply change it to another image), but I wanted to avoid editing users' talk pages/archived talk pages/award pages. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the copyrighted image and I think this DR can be closed by another user as keep. All the other images are good. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think this DR can be closed by another user as keep - or, the older version deleted --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the copyrighted image and I think this DR can be closed by another user as keep. All the other images are good. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per Zscout370 Sreejith K (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, OTRS-ticket needed Stefan Bellini (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
invalid media file Olaf (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No Fop in Estonia. This is a close-up, but many other photos in the category are also problematic. 95.195.129.185 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No source, dubious metadata Sitush (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: scanner metadata. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplication with File:PikiWiki Israel 12373 village clinic in tsofit.JPG.It's not needed to have it twice. Ldorfman (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The other has been deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Kids playing pranks. This is a non-free image and should not be on the Commons. And it's Adolf Eichmann, not the founder of the Faith Baptist Schools. Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused very blury image of the India flag. Replaceable by the SVG drawing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The flag may be unused, but it is beautiful and crisp at it's actual icon size (62 × 42). It's blown up for easy viewing on wikimedia, thereby pixelating it.
- You can scale images down down by using the following: [[Image:Flag of India.svg|42px]], making this image redundant. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused image; replaceable with the SVG drawing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused image; replaceable with the SVG drawing. Also the middle symbol was drawn incorrectly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Superior version available as File:Flag of India.svg. Fry1989 eh? 05:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope at any WMF project (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats). Aleator (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope at any WMF project (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats). Aleator (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
File:JOHANN GOTTLOB FREGE E A INDEPENDÊNCIA DOS POSTULADOS DAS GEOMETRIAS EUCLIDIANA E NÃO-EUCLIDIANAS sem imagens.pdf
[edit]Out of scope at any WMF project (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats). Aleator (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope at any WMF project (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats). Aleator (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope at any WMF project (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats). Aleator (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The map has copyright issues. More info could be found here: [2] and here: [3] Grandmaster 06:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As I said before, I don't have any rights to this map. --Yerevanci (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyright trophy, no FOP in france Mtking (edits) 07:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone speedy deleted this as copyvio. The short text has no threshold of originality at all, I think, hence I restored it and want a proper procedure. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Clear copyviolation. The author died in 2005. The hreshold of originality is clearly givven. --DaB. (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This picture is not created by acrofan but CJ E&M, so it may be under exclusive copyright. (My Mistake, per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused and clearly a violation of privacy and personality rights, as indoor shot and per filename image associated to a real name ([4]). -- Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; low-quality and hardly usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Previously published in 2007 (lower res). Obs.: Already 2 copyvios regarding this actor registered at uploader´s talk page. Gunnex (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously a derivative of a comic. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this in the projects scope? McZusatz (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Image_casebook#Vehicles 99of9 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have agreed with delete of other photographs that I uploaded with custom car designs, however, this is not a car design, it is a car that has been painted over (or possibly temporarily overlaid with stickers and panels) in a basic camouflage pattern to be used as a 3D object for the parade rather than a functional car, the fact that it is a car is (in this sense) incidental. This can be seen by the way the windscreens and windows have been painted over, rendering the car illegal to drive on the public highway and for any practical purposes unusable. For these reasons I believe this particular example falls under UK freedom of panorama. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment If the (2d) camouflage colours and pattern meets the UK threshhold for generating a copyright (equivalent of COM:TOO), which I'm unsure but would guess it does... then I'm not sure FoP-UK can get us out of this because it's a 2d design (wrapped around a non-copyrightable 3d object). Not obvious, I agree, and the differences between the US and UK could be critical here. Other input would be appreciated. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete The United Kingdom is one of those odd countries where utilitarian objects automatically are ineligible for copyright, so for example Star Wars helmets are ineligible for copyright in the United Kingdom. However, I don't think that the paint on the car is "utilitarian" as the car can't be used for any practical purposes without removing the paint. {{FoP-UK}} only applies to works which are permanently installed, but the car is obviously moving (it's standing on top of a different vehicle), so FOP doesn't apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, I forgot to think about permanence. Now the only remaining question is the subjective one: Do these colours and camouflage pattern meet the COM:TOO? --99of9 (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- This might be straying into double-think.
- The utilitarian issue is one of mass production. The car itself is mass produced and does not appear customized, covering the windows with some temporary stickers, wash-off paint or boarding is not customization so let's park that bit.
- The camouflage design is doubtless unique for this pride float as a one-off. It is not a faithful reproduction of a 2D work as the pattern itself could not be mapped to a 2D plane without gross distortion, so let's park that bit.
- The remaining issue is as above, can a one-off bit of colourful camouflage style decoration be considered creative and have sufficient artistic merit under Threshold of originality? Though the threshold may be considered low in UK legal case history, this is invariably for designs for mass usage (such as logos) rather than a one-off for a public parade. Considering the paintwork is not figurative, nor an apparently 'artistic' design but a simple set of random splotches in 3 colours (maybe 4, hard to tell with the lighting) intended to be the equivalent of bunting, I would still veer well into the nothing-here-to-copyright-under-UK-law camp. To that extent it is covered by UK freedom of panorama as it is not a work of art that would have special copyright protection to exempt it from the strongly protected rights for the public or the press to take and publish any photograph they wish, of anything they can see from a public highway in the UK. The generous interpretation of UK FOP based on the reality of local case law works to the great benefit of Commons' purpose, and is probably something we all want to avoid chipping away at unnecessarily, particularly in cases were the discussion is at this level of theoretical/hypothetical analysis with no realistic infringement of copyright or loss for any artist or estate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly original. I think it passes any TOO. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW not COM:DM 99of9 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This was not a broadcast, the screen only showed a live relay of action on stage (of Ken Livingstone talking) and was in that sense a means of visibliity. In such a scenario where there is no recorded video, I am less certain on how to interpret Derivative works—however as I am uncertain, I am not expressing a keep or delete opinion for the moment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say the original television cameraperson still creates a copyright work (and then throws it away by not saving it), certainly this is not own work of the photographer. --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe there would be any case law in the UK that would provide a precedent for such an extreme interpretation of protection for a transient work, when this is a mechanical unrecorded image only intended to help with the audience viewing the speaker and so is below a reasonable threshold of originality (one might draw an accurate comparison with CCTV streams). Performance rights, for example, do not apply as Ken Livingstone was just speaking in public rather than performing a dramatic work of art. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say the original television cameraperson still creates a copyright work (and then throws it away by not saving it), certainly this is not own work of the photographer. --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The US and UK law are similar on this issue. In order for there to be any copyright, the work must have been fixed -- recorded. So, as a legal matter, if it wasn't recorded, then there was no copyright at all and the image would be OK. However, recording is so cheap that it is hard to imagine that there was no recording of the event being made from the feed, and certainly it is up to the uploader to show that that is the case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The file may have been available under a CC license at Picasa at some time (it's not there anymore), but a look at the albums of that Picasa user shows that he has uploaded dozens of images of infantry weapons, many of them obviously copyrighted and taken from various sources. Google Images finds this particular image several times on the web; among the hits are several 2008 entries from Russian forums, some time before the image was uploaded to either Picasa (in 2009 apparently) or here (2010). So I think this is very likely a copyvio, the image should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo de chaîne télévisuelle privée, je reste dubitatif sur la licence Nemoi a parlé le 11:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Taiwan. JuTa 12:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. JuTa 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No {{Cc-by-2.5}}-licensing found before (archive from 04.2007) and after (archive from 07.2007) upload date. Gunnex (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Previously published (even with lower res) in e.g. 2008 (Copyright © 2008-2012 - Todos os Direitos Reservados para Portal de Comunicações) and/or 2008 Gunnex (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted picture, taken from IMDB Sonty (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Найдено полное сходство со файлом на внешнем сайте ([5]). WikiUserFS (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per above.--Gubin (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
copyright protection until 2044 Antemister (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
copyright protection until 2020 Antemister (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Obviously cropped from somewhere. Gunnex (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Said to be PD but is a publicity photo from eBay and almost certainly under copyright. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're seeing both sides of the photo uncut and there are no copyright marks on it. We hope (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mathew, you have tagged this, and other Natalie Wood photos, acknowledging that they are all "publicity" photos. But you continue to state that they are "certainly under copyright," as you do here, or "undoubtedly copyrighted," as you did for a previous one. However, most of the photos also link and refer to the film still article, which I'm sure you've read, and where the legal experts explain clearly why such publicity photos were not usually copyrighted, the exact opposite of your opinion. What gives? And whether or not you don't like Natalie Wood (being that of the thousands of edits you've made over the last six months, her photos are the only things you've tagged for deletion,) your rationale has no basis. Unfortunately, her lead image for her article, which you tagged for the same reason, was deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Studio issued press release photograph obtained from eBay. Most likely under copyright. Not in PD. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone finds this image with a legal and complete copyright notice from 1977 or earlier, this image is correctly tagged/licensed. --Denniss (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Per the legal experts on this topic, they are most unlikely to have been copyrighted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
J'ai fait une mauvaise manipulation et ai importé un fichier sur lequel un de mes proches apparaît. Je souhaite donc supprimer ce fichier (dont je suis l'auteur) Cantalissime (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Google translation: "I did something wrong and have imported a file that is one of my relatives. I therefore wish to delete the file (which I am the author)". Unused, recent upload, author request: Delete. MKFI (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
File:1. Lomonosov (Oranienbaum). Karasta river at the Palace Avenue in the lower garden in the fall..JPG
[edit]неправильное название Александров (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This photo comes from a site[6] that allows downloading for personal use only:[7]; therefore the picture is not PD. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The webmaster wrote me a few years ago stating there was no problem with my adding any of their photos to Wikipedia. Nor do they claim any kind of ownership or copyright for their photos being that they are PD. See film still copyright details for experts' explanations. Anyone can contact them to verify and I still have their email note: "you can use the photos." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need an OTRS ticket to authorize this. Saying that the webmaster wrote you a few years ago is not proof enough of the status of this photo. Is there proof of prior publication or copyright status? Quoting a few "experts" does not determine the state of copyright law regarding use of this particular image from this website. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Type of Work: Motion Picture
- Registration Number / Date: RE0000293030 / 1986-05-12
- Renewal registration for: LP0000014508 / 1958-04-05
- Title: Marjorie Morningstar. By Beachwold Pictures, Inc.
- Copyright Claimant: Richard Feiner and Company, Inc. (PWH)
- I think you need an OTRS ticket to authorize this. Saying that the webmaster wrote you a few years ago is not proof enough of the status of this photo. Is there proof of prior publication or copyright status? Quoting a few "experts" does not determine the state of copyright law regarding use of this particular image from this website. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Variant title: Marjorie Morningstar.
- Names: Beachwold Pictures, Inc.
- Richard Feiner and Company, Inc.
Renewal for the film in 1986. This doesn't appear to be PD at all. We hope (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nowhere does Doctor Macro publicly claim that the photos on its site are in the public domain.
- Home page "We've scanned 8 x 10 glossy movie stills and publicity photos, and the resulting full-size pictures are presented for your viewing and downloading pleasure—all free."-meaning at no cost to you to download--does not specify PD. Vistor agreement "You're free to download them, but that's it. Please send us an email if you would like to use any photos or other content on our site for commercial purposes."-If the photo can't be used for commercial purposes if desired, it's not in the public domain. We hope (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is nor covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from the creator of this painting, of which this photograph is a derivative work. Psychonaut (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
All file, uploaded by User:Icon-art are modern icons from www.icon-art.ru, no permission for free license given Daryona (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Other files with the same problem:
- File:Апостол Марк.jpg
- File:Мария Радонежская.jpg
- File:Мария Кесарийская.jpg
- File:Апостол Лука.jpg
- File:Святой апостол Павел.jpg
- File:Ювеналий патриарх Иерусалимский.jpg
- File:Иродион.jpg
- File:Ирина Македонская.jpg
- File:Иоанн Рыльский.jpg
- File:Иоанн Русский.jpg
- File:Иоанн Прозорливый.jpg
- File:Зинаида Тарсийская.jpg
- File:Патриарх Ермоген.jpg
- File:Дмитрий Прилуцкий.jpg
- File:Ангелина Сербская.jpg
- File:Александр-патриарх-александрийский(2).jpg
- File:Григорий Вологодский.jpg
- File:Герман Константинопольский.jpg
- File:Георгий Святогорец.jpg
- File:Андрей Смоленский(2).jpg
- File:Григорий Синаит.jpg
- File:Арсений Коневский.jpg
- File:Святой Андрей Первозван.jpg
- File:Святой Або Тбилисский.jpg
- File:Святая Дария Римская.jpg
- File:Валентина Минская.jpg
- File:Вячеслав Чешский.jpg
- File:Артемий Веркольский.jpg
- File:Елисавета Феодоровна фото.jpg
- File:Иоанн Кронштадский.jpg
- File:Иоанн Кронштадский.jpg
- File:Княгия Анастасия.jpg
- File:Арефий Насонов.jpg
- File:Алексий Воробьев.jpg
- File:Елисавета Куранова.jpg
- File:Афанасий Сахаров.jpg
- File:Сергий Голощапов.jpg
- File:Иоанн Кронштадский .jpg
- File:Иоанн Кронштадский.jpg
- File:Maksim Rim.jpg
- File:Gospod Petr i Viktor.jpg
- File:Sv Ksenija Pet.jpg
- File:Sv Varvara.jpg
- File:Sv Elisaveta.jpg
- File:Aleksandr Svirskiy.jpg
- File:Angelina Serbskaja.jpg
- File:Nikita Novgor.jpg
- File:Konstantin Yaroslavskiy.jpg
- File:Voskresenie Artemiy.jpg
- File:Andrey Pervozvanniy.jpg
- File:Sv mch Lubov.jpg
- File:Sv Nikita Novg i obraz Bogorodici Pimenovskaya.jpg
- File:Sv Elizaveta Feodorovna.jpg
- File:Sv Vadim.jpg
- File:Savva Storozh.jpg
- File:Sv Sofiya.jpg
- File:Sv Artemiy Verk.jpg
- File:Sv Vladimir Moshanskiy i Obraz Bogorodici Liddskaya.jpg
- File:Evfrosinija Aleks.jpg
- File:Virineja Edesk.jpg
- File:Daniil Moskovskij.jpg
- File:Darija Rimskaja.jpg
- File:Nikolaj Chudotv.jpg
- File:Antonij Rimljanin.jpg
- File:Sergij Rad.jpg
- File:Artemija.jpg
- File:Grigorij Krit.jpg
- File:Marija Kesarijskaja-2.jpg
- File:Anna Kashin.jpg
- File:Darija Rim.jpg
- File:Antonij stolpn.jpg
- File:Lev Optin.jpg
- File:Mihail Muromsk kn.jpg
- File:Aleks Ankir.jpg
- File:Tamara.jpg
- File:Tihon i Serafim.jpg
- File:Ioann Kron.jpg
- File:Timofej.jpg
- File:Maksim adrian.jpg
- File:Marija palest.jpg
- File:Vziskanie viktor2.jpg
- File:Varvara2.jpg
- File:Apolinarija2.jpg
- File:Sofiya sluckaja2.jpg
- File:Kn vladimir2.jpg
- File:Anatoliy2.jpg
- File:Sofija suz.jpg
- File:Aleks cher.jpg
- File:Sv kalerija.jpg
- File:Sv elena.jpg
- File:Sv galina.jpg
- File:Sv georgij.jpg
- File:Valentina.jpg
- File:Vmch nikita.jpg
- File:Taisija.jpg
- File:Evgenija rim.jpg
- File:Anna Prorochica.jpg
- File:Tatiana-sv.jpg
- File:Ija.jpg
- File:Makarij egipetskij.jpg
- File:Dmitrij priluzk.jpg
- File:Vasilisa nik.jpg
- File:Sergij radonezhskij1.jpg
- File:Elizaveta vel kn.jpg
- File:Boris-icon.jpg
- File:Anastasija vel kn.jpg
- File:Kirill rad.jpg
- File:Arh mihail.jpg
- File:Dionisij.jpg
- File:Anastasija uzoresh.jpg
- File:Daniil mosk.jpg
- File:Knjaz.Vladislav.Serbskij.jpg
- File:Grigorij arm.jpg
- File:Chudo o zmie.jpg
- File:Darija.jpg
- File:Georgij poped.jpg
- File:Anatasija.Uzoreshitelnica.jpg
- File:Gleb.jpg
- File:Georgij svjatogor.jpg
- File:Sergij radonezhskij2.jpg
- File:Ariadna-icon.jpg
- File:Andrej perv.jpg
- File:Anastasija pim.jpg
- File:Grigorij pelshem.jpg
- File:Alexey mitropolit.jpg
- File:Velikij.Knjaz.Aleksandr.Nevskij.jpg
- File:Artemij.Verkolskij.1.jpg
- File:Marija kesarijskaja.jpg
- File:Arsenij.Velikij.jpg
- File:Arsenij.Konevskij.jpg
- File:Anatasija.Uzoreshitelnica.1.jpg
- File:Velikomuchenica.Ekaterina.jpg
- File:Knjaz.Vladimir.jpg
- File:Grigorij sinait.jpg
- File:Dimitrij.Solunskij.jpg
- File:Artemij verkolskij.jpg
- File:Artemij.Verkolskij.jpg
- File:Sv Stilian.jpg
- File:Спас в Силах.gif
- File:Dom Deisus.jpg
- File:Semeynaya 1.jpg
- File:Pantokrator1.JPG
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы Помощь в родах.jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы Корсунская.jpg
- File:Donskaja.jpg
- File:Troeruchica.jpg
- File:Neuvaydaemiy Cv.jpg
- File:Feodorovskaya.jpg
- File:Pokrov 1.jpg
- File:Ic Vladimirskaya.jpg
- File:Kosinskaya.jpg
- File:Semistrelnaya.jpg
- File:Pochaevskaja.jpg
- File:Vladimirskaya4.jpg
- File:Kazanskaya3.jpg
- File:Tuchnaya Gora2.jpg
- File:Vladimirskaya5.jpg
- File:Vladimirskaya2.jpg
- File:Blagodatnoe Nebo 1.jpg
- File:Totemskaya.jpg
- File:Kazanskaya1.jpg
- File:Vziskanie Pogibshih.jpg
- File:Vladimirskaya1.jpg
- File:Slovenskaya.jpg
- File:Neopalimaya Kupina 2.jpg
- File:Uspenie.jpg
- File:Игоревская.jpg
- File:Pimenovskaya.jpg
- File:Smolenskaya.jpg
- File:Pochaevskaya2.jpg
- File:Zhirovickaya.jpg
- File:Tuchnaya Gora.jpg
- File:Derzhavnaja.jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Взыскание погибших».jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы Знамение Абалацкая.jpg
- File:Ahtirscaya.jpg
- File:Владимирская икона Пресвятой Богородицы.jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Неупиваемая чаша».jpg
- File:Ахтырская икона Богородицы.jpg
- File:Иверская икона Пресвятой Богородицы.jpg
- File:Ватопедская икона Пресвятой Богородицы.jpg
- File:Казанская икона Пресвятой Богородицы.jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Неувядаемый Цвет».jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Призри на смирение».jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Игоревская».jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Утоли моя печали».jpg
- File:Икона Пресвятой Богородицы «Умиление».jpg
- File:Kazanskaja2.jpg
- File:Fedorovskaja.jpg
- File:Skladen3.jpg
- File:Neupivaemaja chasha.jpg
- File:Bogorodiza2.z.jpg
- File:Feodorovskaja.jpg
- File:Neuv zvet.jpg
- File:Vladimirskaya3.jpg
- File:Tihvinskaya2.jpg
- File:Nech radost.jpg
- File:Vsezarica.jpg
- File:Mlekopitatelniza.jpg
- File:Kazanskaja.jpg
- File:Spasitel-vlad.jpg
- File:Bogorodiza vlad.jpg
- File:Spasitel-vench-neuvyadaemyi-cvet.jpg
- File:Bogorodiza-vench-neuvyadaemyi-cvet.jpg
- File:Spasitel-vench2.jpg
- File:Kazanskaya-vench.jpg
- File:Fedorovskaja ic Bogorod.jpg
- File:Spasitel-vench.jpg
- File:Pantokrator.JPG
- File:Bogorodiza Vifliemskaya.jpg
- File:Святой вмч. Георгий Победоносец.jpg
- File:Святой Алексий Человек Божий.jpg
- File:Троица и Иоанн Белоград.jpg
- File:Троица и Димитрий Солунский.jpg
- File:Даниил московский, серафим, пантелеимон.jpg
- File:Ксения с предстоящими.jpg
- File:Пименовская и Никита.jpg
- File:Елисавета и Иоанн Леств.jpg
- File:Мерная икона с Ангелом Хранителем.jpg
- File:Икона во время крещения.jpg
--Daryona (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
no lo entiendo este programa. 81.172.23.105 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The picture is from Ferd. Urbahns in Kiel. His photos are not yet PD in Germany until 2015. Ras67 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#United States JuTa 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is not covered by COM:FOP#United States. JuTa 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The same applies to:
- File:Tom Otterness The Real World 2.jpg
- File:Tom Otterness The Real World 3.jpg
- File:Tom Otterness The Real World 4.jpg
- File:Tom Otterness The Real World 5.jpg
--JuTa 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Nature of the work makes me very skeptical on if this is the work of the uploader - date of creation is clearly wrong since the subject of the photo (?) died in 1892. Metadata suggests this image has been scanned from somewhere; reverse Google search gives multiple hits. CT Cooper · talk 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Misleading image claiming to be a screenshot, but which actually looks like a lazy digital manipulation (notice how fonts do not match). Keφr (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was ist der Löschgrund? Natürlich ist das eine Manipulation, das ist doch offensichtlich. --Ralf Roleček 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image is used for multiple Wikipedia articles (on de, en and it), hence it is within COM:SCOPE. Disputes images will not be deleted as long they are used. Instead, {{Disputed diagram}} is to be used along with a discussion on the corresponding talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Used in several projects. If you think the description needs correction/supplement then do so, instead adding senseless deletion requests. --Stepro (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- A more accurate description would be: "Manually typed text superimposed in wrong font over [8] to supposedly demonstrate an infection which would have looked completely differently even if it actually happened". Which would demonstrate the image's uselessness, so why even bother keeping it around? This is a misrepresentation of whatever it is supposed to depict. Using this "screenshot" is like trying to pass an "artist's vision" of, say, a distant black hole as an actual photograph.
Someone might also claim copyright to this image, because it contains logos and is derived from the output of proprietary-licensed firmware. This seems admittedly rather weak, but I chose to assume the copyright is valid when uploading en:File:Award BIOS first screen.png, which does depict an actual bootup screen. Keφr (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)- A little bit more objectivity in your argumentation would be likely. --Stepro (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that? Keφr (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- A little bit more objectivity in your argumentation would be likely. --Stepro (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- A more accurate description would be: "Manually typed text superimposed in wrong font over [8] to supposedly demonstrate an infection which would have looked completely differently even if it actually happened". Which would demonstrate the image's uselessness, so why even bother keeping it around? This is a misrepresentation of whatever it is supposed to depict. Using this "screenshot" is like trying to pass an "artist's vision" of, say, a distant black hole as an actual photograph.
non libre, provient d'un site commercial. Tiraden (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
non libre + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
File:ELIOPOLE DE GRAMONT - BALMA - ARCHITECTES MICHELE ET GABRIEL DE HOYM DE MARIEN ET CDA Architectes.jpg
[edit]pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
pas de licence + oeuvre dérivé Tiraden (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Algeria's national anthem obviously is not the uploader's own work, and there is no information to show that it is in the public domain or covered by the stated license or that this specific performance is in the public domain or covered by the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Very likely opyright violation. This appears to be a scan of magazine image, although it is difficult to be sure given the relatively small size of the image. Widely available on the internet. [9] is one example which predates the upload to Commons. The image that was uploaded over the original upload is a copyright violation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment File:Beach (34).jpg is from the same uploader and seem similarly sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Violation of COM:IDENT. Photo was taken in Spain. No indication of consent. Couple appears to be unaware that they are being photographed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ich habe mich leider beim Upload vertan und eine Datei von einer Freundin hochgeladen, die dieses Foto gemacht hat. Es ist somit nicht meines und ich besitze nicht die Rechte. Leider habe ich das erst nach dem Upload in den EXIF Daten gesehen. Bitte datei löschen. Hartmann76 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Private picture - useless image of someones cat Narayan (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of an SVG we have. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of an SVG we have. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
re-taken older photo, no proof of authorship in 1948 194.79.55.130 20:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own photo by the uploader: low resolution, missing EXIF, previously deleted file due to missing source/permission. A.Savin 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Old Soviet photography, cannot be PD yet, unlikely taken by the uploader, no infos on permission. A.Savin 20:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. See the user's other images, as well as the partially erased watermark across the center of the image which appears to read "www.gujranwalahistory.com" or similar. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted lofo of a sports club. Rapsar (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, flickrvio/COM:LL. Uploaded in Flickr in 2009 (without exif) but previously published via (example) http://www.lastfm.com.br/music/Bruno+Miguel/+images/5823939 in 2008 ("Adicionado por fanaticboy em 13 Mai 2008 "). Uploaded by identical user in Flickr and Commons at 12.08.2009. Gunnex (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but tis looks not realy covert by COM:FOP#Argentina. The scupltor Edoardo Rubino died 1954. This sculpture will become PD in 2025. JuTa 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Official logo of Theta Tau Epsilon, without evidence of release from fraternity GrapedApe (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Professional publicity photo uploaded without evidence of legitiate release from photographer/copyright owner GrapedApe (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this as a 2D-work is not covered by COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Creator w:Marc Chagall died 1985 -> the windows will become PD in 2056. JuTa 22:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The same applies to:
--JuTa 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted per com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not own work GrapedApe (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Professional publicity photo uploaded without evidence of legitiate release from photographer/copyright owner GrapedApe (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, cropped, flickrvio/COM:LL. Uploaded by identical user in Flickr and Commons in 12.08.2009 (without exif) but previously published via (example) http://ladyfrancisco.blogspot.de (.jpg) in 09.2008. Gunnex (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Info See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lady Francisco.jpg, considering the other person who appears on that picture (uploaded by same user). Gunnex (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, cropped, flickrvio/COM:LL. Uploaded by identical user in Flickr and Commons in 12.08.2009 (without exif) but previously published via (example) http://ladyfrancisco.blogspot.de (.jpg) in 09.2008. For the other part of that image see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jô Soares.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Clear copyviolation. The author died in 1945. The hreshold of originality is clearly givven. DaB. (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [10]. Yann (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is a representative of Garmin. Also out-of-scope. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Image claims to be PD due to copyright having expired since it has allegedly been 70+ years since the death of the author. With no known author, there is no way to prove this claim, as if the author lived a mere 10 years passed when this photo was taken, this tag would not apply. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing on the source website to confirm that a US Air Force employee took the photo as claimed. It is likely still under copyright to whomever took the picture. Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#United States. JuTa 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The SIRIS database does not mention any inscription. While that is not definitive, it is indicative that this is PD-no-notice. Note also that the original cast of this work is from 1914, although this casting is from 1957. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Question I did a quick search for "Gondolier" and "Alexander Archipenko" at http://www.copyright.gov/ and couldn't find any renewal registration. This implies that the work is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Also, SIRIS shows no evidence of any copyright notice, implying that the work also is {{PD-US-no notice}}. It says that this is a derivative work of a different sculpture from 1914. Is that an issue? The 1914 statue is {{PD-1923}} but might still be copyrighted in its source country, and the source country of the other statue might not have FOP. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Thanks, Stefan. The lack of renewal is definitive here. While SIRIS is sometimes wrong, the USCO database can be depended on. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt that {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} applies here. 84.177.152.250 21:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree. This is a beautiful image, requiring considerable skill. It's too bad we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikitravel user didn't specify any licence, as you can see here. According to voy:MediaWiki:Uploadtext, files uploaded to English Wikitravel before 4 June 2007 need an explicit licence statement and can't automatically be assumed to be available under {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. This was uploaded to Wikitravel in 2005. Stefan4 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the original author of the file, having uploaded it to Wikitravel with the username Fluglotse2000. I will add an appropriate licence. Best wishes, Africaspotter (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Africaspotter. Yann (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
faute de frappe dans le titre René Dinkel (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Renamed. Yann (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture. Out of scope. Wcam (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- nothing mistake can't deletion.this photo was me deng xiao ping copy persion wong lo wang only use in wiki nothing use another web my worker photo with me (deng xiao ping (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
沒有錯不能刪除,這相是我本人小平複制人黃魯宏我工人幫我拍攝泰國我家停車塲只用在維基沒有用在其他網頁沒有版權問題絶對可以保留!
have File:v2.jpgcan proof was same the time photoFile:Cm12.jpg(deng xiao ping (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)) 有File:v2.jpg能証明是同一時間拍攝File:Cm12.jpg(deng xiao ping (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted picture, taken from IMDB Sonty (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- He claims to be the owner. He replied at my talk saying so. I've asked him to send in OTRS. May I swap in an OTRS tag and get rid of the afd tag? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's okay with me. Sonty (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's okay with me. Sonty (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission Techman224Talk 21:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope
- File:Imágenes-con-frases-cristianas-para-Facebook-1 1.jpg
- File:NOE PEÑA.JPG
- File:Noe Peña Salvador.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
These album covers are claimed to be based on paintings which are {{PD-Russia}}, but no information is given on the paintings to verify this. (Licensing may have been copied from File:Arkona - Rus.jpg where this is valid).
- File:Arkona - goi, rode, goi.jpg
- File:Arkona- Ot Serdca K Nebu.jpg
- File:Arkona - Vo Slavu Velikim.jpg
January (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giullia Duarte Almeida (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Cropped from unknown source, like File:Eyshila - 2009.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giullia Duarte Almeida (talk · contribs)
[edit]After identifying several uploads by this user as copyvio (who created also some fake license templates as {{Sony Music Entertainment}}) it´s difficult to believe that the remaining files are really - as declared - own work. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF) so this one can't be believed either.
Gunnex (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Infiorata (Genzano di Roma)
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Italy.
- File:Corpus domini.jpg
- File:Genzano Infiorata Allestimento 20040620.JPG
- File:Infiorata 2005.JPG
- File:Infiorata 2007 Posa dei fiori.jpg
- File:Genzano Infiorata crop.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete FOP#Italy, but we should consider to stop the deletion request about Italian no-fop: see here. Raoli ✉ (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Panorama Gpe. Zac..JPG
- File:Liverpool Zacatecas.jpg
- File:Palacio de Convenciones Zacatecas.jpg
- File:Catedral Zacatecas.jpg
- File:Amsterdam2010.jpg
- File:Parroquia Santa Elena de la Cruz RGR.jpg
- File:Panorama-surRGR.jpg
- File:PanoramaRGR.jpg
- File:Estación de Ferrocarril Río Grande Zacatecas.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rafil lone (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Rafil lone signature.gif
- File:Rafillonesig.jpg
- File:Rafil lone 2.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0289.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0232.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0188.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0186.jpg
- File:Rafil lone 1.jpg
- File:Rafil ahmad lone.jpg
- File:Big Show. Aug.10006.jpg
- File:Rafil lone.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rafil lone (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures, outside project scope.
- File:Pilot zahoor.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0521.jpg
- File:2nd generation.0504.jpg
- File:Rafil lone.jpg
- File:Rafil lone 7.jpg
- File:Rafil ahmad lone.1.jpg
- File:Rafil ahmad.jpg
- File:Rafil.jpg
- File:Lone rafil.jpg
- File:Rafil lone sign.gif
moogsi (blah) 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would Keep one or two for the Unibrows category.--Pacostein (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as out of scope/test images. The descriptions are even gibberish -FASTILY 08:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Files by Matushka
[edit]- File:Логотип МитДжет.jpg - logo without permission
- File:Обложка Алеф.jpg - modern book cover without permission, self|cc-by-sa-3.0 = copyvio
- File:Этап зимнего Кубка МитДжет 2012.JPG - page with image, direct imagelink
- File:Ледовые гонки на Тушино Ринг.JPG - page with image, page with image
- File:Harley 1.jpg - (c) Ridus-News.lj.ru without permission, self|cc-by-sa-3.0 = copyvio
- File:Harley 2.jpg - (c) Ridus-News.lj.ru without permission, self|cc-by-sa-3.0 = copyvio
- File:Harley 3.jpg - (c) Ridus-News.lj.ru without permission, self|cc-by-sa-3.0 = copyvio
- File:Ferrari3.JPG - probably copyvio, page with image
- File:Ferrari1.JPG - source not found, but probably the same case as Ferrari3.JPG above
- File:Ferrari2.JPG - page with authorship 2012 Ferrari FF © Фото: Олег Богданов, Ferrari Москва, but marked as self|cc-by-sa-3.0 = copyvio
- File:Ferrari4.JPG - as above
- File:Ferrari5.JPG - as above
- File:Феррари2.JPG - as above
- File:Ниссан тест.jpg - appeared before Commons in gallery
- File:Ниссан тест 2.jpg - as above
- File:Ниссан тест 3.jpg - as above
- File:Ягуар 1.JPG - no metadata, appeared in gallery
- File:Ягуар 2.jpg - as above
- File:Ягуар 3.JPG - as above
- File:Ягуар 4.JPG - as above
- File:Ягуар 5.JPG - as above
- File:Ягуар 6.JPG - as above
- File:Mercedes Test.jpg - see metadata: author KOROTAYEV ARTYOM, copyrightholder ITAR-TASS
- File:Mercedes Test 1.jpg - see metadata: author KOROTAYEV ARTYOM, copyrightholder ITAR-TASS
- File:Mercedes Test 2.jpg - see metadata: author KOROTAYEV ARTYOM, copyrightholder ITAR-TASS
- File:Летний сезон Кубка МитДжет в Казани.jpg - unusual dimensions of photo, if take in account all above - doubtful authorship, maybe also copyvio
Seems like mass copyvio. --Dmitry89 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am in favor of deleting them all except 2 Ferrari3.jpg and Ferrari1.jpg because it may be that both the active-pro.ru to have taken the photo without declaring Matushka as an author (also confirmed by the fact that only one of the two images can be found online, and only at that site), however, given the other copyviol are skeptical too. So I propose to delete all the pictures and the two wait for the intervention of matushka, if this does not come even delete the last two. ok?--Pava (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC) edit: the logo are very simply, for me no have copyright (imho)--Pava (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Karenkarnak
[edit]Files appear to be more self-promotional than of any practical educational use, if any. As well, they contain trademarked names or symbols of a group which has apparently denied[11] the associations expressed by the files. djr13 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daianaherrero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Daiana herrero en daygiis.jpg
- File:Daiana herrero de daygis yutube.jpg
- File:Daiana belen herrero- argentina.jpg
- File:Daiana belén herrero - comodoro.jpg
- File:Daiana herrero de Daygiis.jpg
- File:DAYGIIS - DAIANA Y GISEL HERRERO.png
- File:Daygiis Daiana y Gisel Herrero.jpg
- File:Daygiis - daiana y gisel herrero.png
- File:Daiana y Gisel Herrero en Daygiis.jpg
- File:Daiana herrero.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Delantoi30 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scanned Images with unknown sources. Doubtful self license.
GeorgHH • talk 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Blue Fox xyz (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Image was flickrreviewed, just because the author has stopped distributing under a free licence doesn't mean we need to. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: license was verified on upload Denniss (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Commons:PEOPLE#Country-specific_consent_requirements#Spain - subject consent required for publication of photos taken in a public place. Photographer's reference at source to "un tele" (telephoto lens) indicates none obtained. Rd232 (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I can trace backward your objection. The photographer has tested his new telephoto lens (300 mm according to EXIF data). The subject's consent is improbable but not impossible. The Flick publication may be also illegal. In this cases Commons must delete it? Or can we presume the subject's consent? How can the photographer prove it? With a written paper and an ID card copy from the subject? --Ras67 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Proof in this area is a whole can of worms. But if the photographer doesn't even assert it in some way, we have to assume it wasn't given. Rd232 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pixelated it should be acceptable. --Ras67 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Violates COM:IDENT. Another reminder that simply being on Flickr with a free license does not mean that it is ok to upload to Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There is the following conversation on the FLickr page for the photo.
- WaysBcn (55 months ago)
- pero este tipo de fotos no esta prohibido? pregunto...
- J.C. Rojas (55 months ago)
- @WaysBcn: Por?
- WaysBcn (55 months ago)
- por que tenia entendido que la difusion de fotografias en internet de personas en su intimidad..como estar en la playa etc.. estaba prohibido por eso preguntaba, tampoco se muy bien como va el tema.
- J.C. Rojas (55 months ago)
- @WaysBcn: cualquier fotografía "robada" al sujeto es ilegal según los términos de la legislación. No sólo las sacadas en la playa. Así que un buen trozo de nuestras galerías son ilegales.
- WaysBcn (55 months ago)
- These bot uploads are a menace. A human uploader might have been able to notice terms such as "prohibo" and "ilegal" before making the upload. And the closer of the last discussion should have checked the source page and seen this.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. But I do object to the different standards being applied to sexuality pictures and those of partial nudity. The subject's consent is needed no matter how heavily they are clothed. Here certain nude images do need to be deleted, but so do other large areas of the Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep For the time being. I have blurred the face, so that there is no identifiable person issues. The real problem that I foresee is that guidelines such as Commons:PEOPLE#Country-specific_consent_requirements#Spain do not appear to have been written as a result of discussion amongst the community, but by individual editors and their own interpretations of laws in individual countries. I look at the Spanish law as it's written, and I see that it entirely possible that the consent provisions is only required for people in private situations; of which a person being on the beach would likely not fall under, if that is the case with the law. Getting this right the first time is imperative for this project, and we need some expert guidance, particularly as images such as this are in use on our projects. This community is not educated enough on this subject, and for us to be able to educated others we need to get up to speed. Nominating and deleting images of a certain type (i.e. public toplessness, etc) whilst leaving other images alone is not going to do the project any good in the long run, especially if we get it wrong to begin with. russavia (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're hanging your hat on a bad translation (now fixed). The original Spanish of s 7.5 of the relevant law is clearly "in private places or private moments or outside them". Weird phrasing, but clear enough: consent is needed unless an exemption from s8 applies. Rd232 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have blurred the face, so that there is no identifiable person issues. - how does that work exactly? Do we imagine people are incapable of clicking through to the unblurred Flickr source? Rd232 (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is not our problem. If the image survives the unpixelated versions will deleted.--Ras67 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Granted, I'm no expert here, but I'm pretty sure that using an image that breaks the law as a source kinda sorta is our problem. Besides, it's downright hypocritical of us to blur the faces, claim that everything is alright by the law and then go right ahead and link to the unblurred version. --10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- The spirit of COM:IDENT (letter is under review) is that it concerns identifiable people. That is not restricted to "identifiable from the Commons visual image data alone, no further info counts". See Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/2013#Scope. Rd232 (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is not our problem. If the image survives the unpixelated versions will deleted.--Ras67 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted all except the latest version, blurred for privacy. Yann (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this correctly licensed? It had a bogus license which I just removed, and I think the remaining one is inaccurate too. Reviewer Jappalang is no longer active, FYI. This should be expanded to the related images - SVG, etc. Elvey (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, there's no need to delete; I still think the current licensing is invalid, but the work is a simple geometric design, not copyrightable, per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing#Simple_design and {{PD-shape}} applies. (Right?) --Elvey (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The licensing as it stood was correct. Reference 3 on the page is a dead link but says that the "seal was codified in Japanese law by Imperial decree in 1926". You can see the text at archive.org (arms and flag are defined in section 2). Governmental decrees, including Imperial decrees, are, as far as I can tell, covered by {{PD-Japan-exempt}}. {{PD-EdictGov}} is used to declare that the file is public domain in the US, as all files on Commons have to be free to use in their country of origin and the United States. Hope at least some of this makes sense :) --moogsi(blah) 03:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- KeepYes, you make sense! I rushed to judgement. I didn't think to consider that a law might define the Imperial Seal of Japan. That was not very open-minded of me. Sorry! Someone with DelReqHandler access will close this soon. --Elvey (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate File:148 2.png -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Karasta_river_at_the_Palace_Avenue_in_the_lower_garden_in_the_fall..JPG){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://u15om.unblog.fr/files/2009/10/pa144526.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.centrhotel.ru/images/izh/izh01.jpg){kind=link}
._Karasta_river_at_the_Palace_Avenue_in_the_lower_garden_in_the_fall..JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Karasta_river_at_the_Palace_Avenue_in_the_lower_garden_in_the_fall..JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[8]](http://img.tomshardware.com/de/2007/05/25/western-digital-raptor-nvidia-problem/wd_festplatte_bios_big.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=409213684#File:Peter_Deeg_Hofjuden_03.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept: Per consensus. It seems to be under governmental PD, and the license was fixed accordingly. whym (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a false claim of authorship (The uploader is not the author). See his talk. McZusatz (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's on the OTRS ticket? cmadler (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I just found out a way to E-mail the owner. What should I ask for? Would an E-mail saying "Sure" be ok or do I need something more? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also would it be ok if the E-mail is in Armenian because I don't know if they'll respond to any other language. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:OTRS gives information about what is needed. cmadler (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I sent an E-mail to the copy right holder and am awaiting a reply. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let us know weather he affirmed. If so please forward the Mail to the Mail address stated at com:otrs. --McZusatz (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- They seem confused about this process, but also seem willing to give me permission. I just instructed them how to give permission to OTRS. If it goes right they should recieve the E-mail soon. The "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" will be in Armenian though because I was afraid they would ignore me if I spoke to them in English. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File was deleted by User:Yann. INeverCry 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No proof of dating or lack of copyright. We hope (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The dating is an estimate by the eBay seller. The implication is that the photo was done by George Watson by the signature, but that's all we have re: creator. We can't see the back of this photo to determine if Watson indeed took it (photographer's stamp) or whether he took it as part of work for a film studio and they copyrighted it. We hope (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Response to list of complaints:
- The date is estimated.
- There is no "implication" about who took the photo, it was clearly stated by seller. They also have other similar publicity stills for sale by the same photographer.
- The "inscription" on the photo, not the "signature" is written to Watson.
- Not seeing the back of the photo to make sure Watson took it is irrelevant, considering that the vast majority of publicity stills never have a photographer's name given.
- The back of such photos, even if there was a stamp, would only indicate the photographer name, little else. And naturally he took it, like his others, as part of his "work for a film studio." That's what studio photographers do, as the link explained.
- As the same "film still" article also states numerous times, publicity stills were "traditionally not copyrighted," and gives the many reasons why. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Response to list of complaints:
Delete I think the problem with this lies in a different place. I'll stipulate that this was taken by Watson, but there is no evidence here that this was used as publicity still. Quite the opposite -- it has a personal inscription and this copy, at least, could not have been used for publicity. Other copies are unlikely to have been used for publicity because the railing in the foreground is clumsy and it is not as tightly cropped as it should be. While it possible that other copies were published, this one clearly was not -- its appearance on eBay may well be its first publication, in which case it will not be PD until 120 years after creation. Without proof that a copy of this image was actually published before its appearance on eBay, we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, here's a published cigarette card from the same shooting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
