Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Copyright Violation 
Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 01:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrigth violation, false claim of own work. Martin H. (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 01:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrigth violation, false claim of own work. Martin H. (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:BayberryParkMap combo.PNG
- File:BeechmontdualMapNew.PNG
- File:BeechmontWoods70.jpg
- File:BeechmontWoods71.jpg
- File:LarchWoodsTudor7.JPG
- File:NR Arcade Building.JPG
- File:NR Echo Bay 5.JPG
- File:NRLambdenBuilding.PNG
- File:PryerManorNew Roch1.jpg
- File:PryerManorNew Roch2.JPG
- File:PryorManor.JPG
- File:PryorManor1.JPG
- File:RH 1.1.PNG
- File:RH hunter ave.jpg
- File:Riviera Shores home.jpg
- File:Rprh 1.jpg
- File:Rprh 2.jpg
- File:ShoreDrive2.JPG
- File:Soulice House.jpg
- File:StrattonManorHouse1.JPG
- File:StrattonManorHouse2.jpg
- File:SuttonManor ChesterPatterson1.jpg
- File:SuttonManor ChesterPatterson2.jpg
- File:SuttonManor ChesterPatterson3.jpg
- File:SuttonManor Sjostrom.jpg
- File:SuttonManorShingle.jpg
- File:SuttonManorTudor.jpg
- File:SuttonManorTudor2.jpg
- File:ViewToNRHarbor.JPG
- File:Wilmotwoods.PNG
- File:WilmotWoodsMap.PNG
These uploads was made by one of many socks of Jvolkblum, who has been banned here and on WP:EN for repeated copyvios and socks. Small size, no EXIF. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to deleted File:Time lapse of Drosera glanduligera glue tentacle movement upon deposition of fruit fly.ogv Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: please use a speedy deletion tag in the future, no need to clutter up DR pages Denniss (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:曾俊華 VS 森美.jpg. Wylve (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: please use {{Duplicate}} in the future Denniss (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested here by another user that this is a non-free logo. To me this is not an "obvious" case for speedy deletion, but I do bring up here for discussion by the community. Senator2029 14:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested here by another user that this is a non-free logo. To me this is not an "obvious" case for speedy deletion, but I do bring up here for discussion by the community. Investitorul (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
erreur d'uploading Opiqmaster (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, recently uploaded, badly licensed - no reason to keep Herby talk thyme 17:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Velocitas (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Cnfbhvbhghhbghgrtefgjgnvgbff hgjvjgfvnngjhtnnjfjnbjnfjnncjnkghfnfhgkfv$68868$)65)88?5$8$97)7;5)87)8;7)86;5;5$ 208.66.11.77 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense nomination without providing any rationale. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
miss title Super Sisters (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, like all other uploads by this uploader (but can't find the source on Google right now) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
claimed source asserts "all rights reserved". Image is only used for a hopelessly-spammy en.wp submitted article DMacks (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
meant to create category, not create file Mjrmtg (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
File has been taken from http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3294450.ece (image metadata confirms its from The Times) and uploaded under a false self-made claim. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a hoax picture composed to imply that Theo Walcott is a Chelsea F.C. player Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, prank image by user "Hoaxxx"; uploader blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (picture taken from a newspaper) Remi Mathis (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry Morning ☼ (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
en:E. H. Shepard, an English artist died 1976. The book with Winnie-the-Pooh was published in 1924. Not PD- sугсго 14:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry Morning ☼ (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
unverifiable source considering that the source link goes to another image. also, i don't think that we can necessarily take doctor macro as a reliable source given that the site does not provide any information about the provenance of their images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Photo seems fine and in scope. Unless some particular reason is offered,
Keep. (Note: If there is some reason it is important this be deleted that for some reason you prefer not to mention publicly, you can send a message with an explanation via Commons:OTRS.) Infrogmation (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless some reason to delete is offered, Keep Infrogmation (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
personal reasons of uploader Kathatonia (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep unless a reason to delete is offered. Infrogmation (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
These plans appear to be copyrighted (probably dating from the 1970s or later). Certainly no indication of PD status at source. Rd232 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused out-of-scope image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Souce: Opera propria, author: uca Capuchini, not own work, need OTRS permission Morning ☼ (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Metadata for this image indicate a BBC Copyright. Hektor (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Metadata for this image indicate a BBC Copyright. Hektor (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a contemporary statue - no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. A.Savin 11:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
снимок был сделан мной на открытии памятника SwamiJonathan (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Simple text, out of scope of Commons. The table is not in use anywhere, if you want to use it in future simply do so using en:Help:Table. Martin H. (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
image is blurry, better images available Thiotrix (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with you. please go ahead.Rameshng (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
image is blurry Thiotrix (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Support a blurry image of unidentified plant is probably out of scope. --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom; orphan image, no indication of importance or rarity to compensate for low image quality. Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo/poster of an organization. Rapsar (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a company. It consists more than simple geometric shapes. Rapsar (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a company. It consists more than simple geometric shapes. Rapsar (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable company. Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Corporate logo; uploader's claim to be creator aside, few companies would willingly release their logo under CC-BY-SA... Yunshui (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
According to an update to the source http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/Slavery/details.php?categorynum=5&categoryName=&theRecord=10&recordCount=77, the drawing is a recent artist's impression (c. 1992, based on the same artist's drawings published c. 1984) Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 14:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, possible copyright violation Stas1995 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyright violation Stas1995 (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alex Voce en Shooting !.jpg --Stas1995 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, user has uploaded several copyvios Morning ☼ (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Watermarking makes it useless Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text document. Unclear origins of photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Can't see any indication on source site that its works are PD - even assuming that this photo is its work (looks like it might be scanned from a print). Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of copyright text MPF (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see a copyright notation on it anywhere. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to. Text is always copyrighted unless explicitly stated not to be. - MPF (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, I could write the same information on a piece of paper, tape it over the sign and take a picture and that would be ok? --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, no - that's still copying their text (however you do it, by hand or by camera!), which is breach of their copyright. We may not like the law, but we have to abide by it. If it's any consolation, you're not alone, lots of files like this get deleted from Commons every day (the deletions log is typically well over 100 files per day). - MPF (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, I could write the same information on a piece of paper, tape it over the sign and take a picture and that would be ok? --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to. Text is always copyrighted unless explicitly stated not to be. - MPF (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The text is too short and too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational use, possibly intended for BLP violation Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out-of-scope as text-only document. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out-of-scope as text-only document. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
image is blurry Thiotrix (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge stamps by Magyar Posta are NOT considered to be in the public domain. They have their respective authors and are copyrighted, life of authir+70 years. Teemeah (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No attribution given to the authors of the pictures. Globe-trotter (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
1992 Statue [1] still in copyright. Derivative work. No FOP in the US. No permission. Simonxag (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Source claims this 1955 work is "now public domain", but as a work published in Leverkusen, Germany, it's hard to see what the reason would be. Rd232 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Most likely copyvio from [2], with what looks like the actual original in flickr from 2006, instead of claimed 2011. MKFI (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Some sort of banner or logo for user, not in use anywhere, so out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --Avenue (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
versiones antiguas Mezasig (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If this is an official logo, it seems likely to be copied from somewhere although I have not yet found a source. If this is an unofficial logo it seems to be lacking in educational value. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If this is an official logo, it seems likely to be copied from somewhere although I have not found a source. If this is an unofficial logo it seems to be lacking in educational value. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Joe Giron is the author not the flickr-account owner. See metadata and flickr-stream. Rillke(q?) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a copy from http://www.premioaltazor.cl/javiera-contador-casado-con-hijos/. Túrelio (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Olny (obscure) Text; → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Google-Translator:
- “Sorry, I have a question for the leaders of this community, as I have witnessed strange behavior between members of this institution ... how can religious members can relate so close in front of the participants at public events? ? I say close if not "scandalous affair"! Is it possible that may exist inside the convent a love affair between two members??? If so, how do I fix this??? Because that's what I noted between a sister and a brother ...
- Sorry, but no more scandals in our church! We've had too with our poor priests ... true to what we live ...”
Jahobr (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not own work but © Corbis. All Rights Reserved. Windows 7 sample image Rillke(q?) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio : sculptor Henri Lagriffoul is dead in 1981 : not in public domain and no Freedom of panorama in France Remi Mathis (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio : sculptor Henri Lagriffoul is dead in 1981 : not in public domain and no Freedom of panorama in France Remi Mathis (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio : architect dead after 1942 => not in public domain and no Freedom of panorama in France Remi Mathis (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just to say that I uploaded it with Magnus' tool. I have no problems in supporting deletion, if the law doesn't allow to take a photo of that building for another 10 years (if I counted right). --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Central element of flag appears to be a copyright violation. Malpass93 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Location is identified as Tenerife. No evidence of consent has been provided. Additionally, I viewed the source page and found no licensing information - did I just miss it? How are licensed confirmed for images taken from Google accounts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: While I cannot speak to the consent issue, See https://picasaweb.google.com/105432035598159259077/RiportfotokReportPhotos?noredirect=1#5539531650334290674 for the CC-BY-3.0 license. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep likely some disruptive Dr. This is not a violation of com:ident. Obviously a public place - surely not a private beach. The license is definately ok - an admin uploaded it and another trusted confirmed the licensing. Besides the site can easily be opened and the licensing can easiliy be checked. Really no basis for deleting this image. // Michael P
- Other than Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain, you mean? Delete. --Conti|✉ 14:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. --Andreas JN466 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently all photos of people in Spain in public places need to be deleted en mass (except for whatever very few have explicit permission from the person photographed.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment One should think of the possibility that the person depicted in the image agreed with the publication of the image of her. The photographer seems to be a professional photographer who uploads his works on picasa - including his journeys with his family. Possibly shows this image a family member whom he asked. --High Contrast (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is certainly possible, but the possibility is not sufficient. Lacking any positive confirmation that they gave consent, this is in violation of COM:IDENT because it is in violation of Spanish laws regarding images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In Spain, consent is required for publishing any photograph of an identifiable person regardless of whether it is in a public or private space. If it were a portrait photograph, I think we could reasonably assume consent, but in this case it does not seem certain that consent was given. Thus, we must err on the side of the subject's right to privacy, per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. If the photographer were to add an assertion of consent to the Picasa page or email it to OTRS, I would be happy to undelete. Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Image taken in Spain, no evidence of consent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per previously nominated and kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 7507 (258117845).jpg. (Unless there is some Spanish law that requires explicit consent from people in public places, in which case there are a huge number of photos taken in Spain that need deletion -- if this is the case, please specify the relevant law.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The above cited laws seem pretty clear. Not to mention that the image now has a non commercial license on Flickr. --Conti|✉ 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Conti, CC-licenses are irrevocable - once published under a free CC-license, the image remains free. --High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the change of license issue is completely irrelevant. However this seems to be a very important case; it looks like at least hundreds more likely thousands of our photographs taken in Spain will need deletion for identical reason as this nomination. Infrogmation (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Legally irrelevant, yes. Morally? No, not at all irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 19:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You see moral problems with the irrevocability of CC-licenses? --High Contrast (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Potential moral problems, yes. Say, a person uploads a compromising picture of a second person and uploads it under a free license without understanding what that actually means. Upon finding out what it does mean, he tries to revoke the license since he does not want to potentially hurt the person he photographed. Now, legally, there's nothing wrong with the picture. Morally, however, it would be the right thing to delete the picture, especially when we have a myriad of similar pictures. I'm not saying that's the exact situation here, but it's definitely a possibility. Or, in short: Going "Nyah nyah you can't ever have the picture deleted because you made a simple mistake!" is not a good or sensible attitude to have. --Conti|✉ 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- You see moral problems with the irrevocability of CC-licenses? --High Contrast (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Legally irrelevant, yes. Morally? No, not at all irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 19:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Conti is mixing something up: the image, the drawing, the motve itself might be not constantly fall under a CC-licence as we talk about the COM:IDENT thing but the photographic work done by the uploader is still under a free license. This are two different thing, Conti. --87.159.42.200 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't get my point at all. This is not about whether we are legally allowed to keep the picture. We are (at least when it comes to the licensing question). My point is that this is not the only thing we should take into consideration for the deletion discussion. --Conti|✉ 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In Spain, consent is required for publishing any photograph of an identifiable person regardless of whether it is in a public or private space. If it were a portrait photograph, I think we could reasonably assume consent, but in this case it does not seem certain that consent was given. Thus, we must err on the side of the subject's right to privacy, per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. If the photographer were to add an assertion of consent to the Picasa page or email it to OTRS, I would be happy to undelete. Kaldari (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hakimullah
[edit]Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Movie Screenshots (Taken from Lessons in Forgetting)
Puramyun31 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some are watermarked.
- File:Сборная Армении по футболу перед матчем с Литвой.jpg
- File:Юра Джан.jpg
- File:Movsisyan.jpg
- File:Артур Саркисов.jpeg
- File:-OtDuJJNaec.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:381179 411507728912376 369402530l;.jpg
- File:419845 306319479431202 289070015l,.jpg
- File:299833 222456661150818 306717761yu.jpg
- File:262090 171284692934682 2211056uytu.jpg
- File:205100 450426338353848 1417447264ty.jpg
- File:181998 140749202654898 3101239tuy.jpg
- File:181967 140749579321527 5969872tyuy.jpg
- File:166232 130819253647893 556865tyuty.jpg
- File:162940 130819280314557 4014672regb.jpg
- File:163616 130818860314599 4553843uuy.jpg
- File:62717 105633766166442 7703997rett.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martijane34 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Selectormartis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promotional images. No evidence of permission.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La pachirra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:AGUA SANTA EN EL COSTA REGGAE.jpg
- File:AGUA -SANTA.jpg
- File:AGUA SANTA.jpg
- File:LOGO BANDERA DE AGUA SANTA.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuelaelias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Brasão Família Galindo.jpg
- File:Bruno Galindo.jpg
- File:Bruno Galindo perfil.jpg
- File:Bruno Henrique Galindo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used.
- File:CHEMCOOL 8.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 9.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 7.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 5.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 6.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 4.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 3.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 2.jpg
- File:CHEMCOOL 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amenostenes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Cezaryszubielski.jpg
- File:Za biurkiem.JPG
- File:Przy biurku.JPG
- File:Czarek1.jpg
- File:Cezaryszubielski2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chetansweet07 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of some kind. No evidence of permission.
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-8.png
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-7.png
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-6.png
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-4.png
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-3.png
- File:Christian Dior Cannage Handbag Giveaway by Slotanna-5.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Facundo Tejera (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jayeshjain88 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Grisette de 1830
[edit]Sculptor Jean-Bernard Descomps died in 1948, no FoP in France, the statue will be in public domain on 1 January 2019.
- File:La Grisette de 1830 01.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 02.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 03.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 04.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 05.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 06.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 07.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 08.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 09.jpg
- File:La Grisette de 1830 10.jpg
- File:La Grisette Paris 11e.jpg
- File:Square Jules Ferry Paris 11e - Statue de Grisette 001.JPG
Coyau (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:La Grisette
Nothing to argumented : Rendez-vous in five years. - Siren-Com (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Federica90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Commons is not a priate image host.
GeorgHH • talk 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
images from the German government and political parties are not in the PD, source for individual files is missing, the uploader is not the copyright owner.
Polarlys (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carmen Fernandez B
[edit]Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:4ryeeel
[edit]- File:DYperrossalvajes.jpg
- File:IsaacDiaz2013.jpg
- File:Cesarcortes2013.jpg
- File:Dariofranco2013.jpg
- File:AleFosalba.jpg
- File:LuzValdivieso.jpg
Small size, no EXIF, user has uploaded several copyvios. Can't find the source on Google right now, probably a screenshot from the TV. –Makele-90 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
es un archivo descriptivo, poco gráfico, que muestra solamente una historia que puede ser un mito o una leyenda, y no tiene nada que ver aquí con la imagen, lo cual no es enciclopedico Duque Santiago (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
it's a picture of woman born in 1940. How can be own work? 188.86.2.202 19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The "date" field lists 2012, but this is clearly not a 72 year old woman. As the nom asserts, "own work" is therefore hard to believe. -Pete F (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree that this one seems unlikely, hence my deletion, but some of us are older than you think -- I have at least one "own work" image on Commons from the 1950s. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation - copyright info edit required Blagomeni (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 18:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Pedra vermelha pirangucu 01.jpg is a photo of better quality of the same rock, so this file is redundant. Mateussf (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In File:Pedra vermelha pirangucu 01.jpg, distance, angle and time of day/year all seem to be different, and there isn't a huge difference in the size or quality of the photos - no reason to delete imo --moogsi(blah) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Some editors feel that the rationale for publication is too vague. I think we should seek consensus on this file as an example for future discussions. Was the point of creation the actual publication date? Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously. New Mexico states that mug shots are free for distribution. Under the pre-1978 copyright act they would have been distributed without a copyright notice. Merely offering copies to the public without a copyright notice constituted publication. (which is why I don't have to prove that such a copy was ever distributed). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Merely offering copies to the public without a copyright notice constituted publication." - source? Assuming correct, it also needs to go into Commons:Publication. Of course, the definition of "offering" may well be an issue here, in a way it wouldn't normally be with copies on sale. Rd232 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You mean where it says "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."? Already in there! -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Er, OK. :) Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about New Mexico law, but it seems the main thrust of the Inspection of Public Records Act is to allow the public access to inspect public records. It also requires officials to "provide reasonable facilities to make or furnish copies" of the records. Is the distinction between "offering to distribute copies" and merely providing facilities to make copies important here? If not, would the authorities have been offering to provide copies "for the purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display"? --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Er, OK. :) Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You mean where it says "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."? Already in there! -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- "County and municipal records are not included in the term "public records" as that term is defined in this article." from http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/info/14-3NMSA.pdf Does that law ony cover state employees and not Albuquerque police?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is an old Attorney General opinion without weight of law. If you look through there you will notice that the same AG opined that police reports do fall under the statute. Recent court rulings also make it plain that city government does fall under the statute[3]. I don't have access to the old AG opinions, but it is possible he was distinguishing "municipal" affairs involving the day to day affairs of operation of the city from higher level city functions, such as planning. But like I said the AG also said police reports were covered. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright status tag seems correct from what I see. Infrogmation (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Check out this version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. INeverCry 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Taken in Ibiza, no evidence of permission. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep I have cropped the image - the woman on the left was the only person that was identifiable on the image. As such nobody is identifiable on the new file version. As such: keep it. --High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; clearly fails Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain --Andreas JN466 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep it does not violate this requirement cited above becuase there is nobody identifiable on the photo // Michael P.
- I guess you didn't read the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, which problem do you see with this image? Your link (Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain) is only applicable for identifiable persons. This file contains no identifiable persons. --High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- IMO High Contrast seems right; seems one of the last we'd need to delete out of all the photos of people taken in Spain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, which problem do you see with this image? Your link (Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain) is only applicable for identifiable persons. This file contains no identifiable persons. --High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per High Contrast. INeverCry 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues - unreasonable intrusion into subject's privacy. No information on subject age or release. Privatemusings (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This has already been kept once. The image is taken on a public beach and the women are not even identifiable. The only guideline that supports deletion is Commons:Photographs of evil nudity#Moral Majority issues. Prolog (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not particularly convinced that this photo is an unreasonable intrusion considering as far as I am aware, it was taken on a public beach. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not recognisable and on a public beach anyway. Hohum (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Public beach. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The first DR was closed correctly. This image is in my view complaint with COM:PEOPLE.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
.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){kind=link}
Kept. All causes are said. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Commons_talk:Nudity#Permission_of_subject I believe folk have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a public beach to the degree that their permission is desirable before publishing an image to wikimedia - this image has no consent of the subject, and I support deletion. Privatemusings (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No additional reason in respect with the previous round. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This has already gone through two deletion requests, the last only a few weeks ago. The community has clearly decided that it does comply with the rules in COM:PEOPLE. You have provided no new rationale other than to say that you disagree with the previous conclusions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason I gave last time around. Adambro (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Stop going on and on about this, Privatemusings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No reasons provided why this is more unacceptable now than it was a month or so ago. I'm going to close this as nothing new has been presented. It's on a beach, which is public enough for COM:PEOPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Taken in Barcelona, no evidence of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Andreas JN466 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I do hope you're nominating all the clothed Spaniards as well!!!! --Simonxag (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've nominated a few as I've come across them, but I imagine once people wrap their heads around the situation there will need to be a more organized effort to delete images in violation. I think starting with this type of image is probably sensible. They are more likely to be shared and more likely to cause embarrassment to the subject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed --Simonxag (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If this interpretation is correct, ALL photos of potentially identifiable people taken in Spain MUST be deleted from Commons as quickly as possible (with the only exceptions being where specific permission of person visible has been proven). Clothing and "embarrassment" have zero to do with the subject. If this is the law, this is the law. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have now blurred the face of the only identifiable person in this photo, so there is now no identifiable issues in relation to this photo. We can delete the original photo after this discussion. russavia (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have gone ahead and blurred two more faces, although they are barely identifiable. I've also removed the other versions of the image from the history. There is now no reason for this image to be deleted. russavia (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep since the faces are blurred. Unlike almost all photos of people in Spain on Commons, this apparently is now legal. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Now not identifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've had a careful read of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain and I don't believe blurring the faces makes any difference. It's still a photo of those people and it needs explicit consent. I think the confusion comes from this being seen as a subsection of our policy on identifiable people, but if we're to obey Spanish law (and most other European countries') law as it's presented on the Commons, then even anonymized pictures that are of a person must go. Please read the policy and have a think about it, because these rules are going to apply to a lot of images. --Simonxag (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with Infrogmation (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept:. Issue resolved by Russavia. INeverCry 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Explicit nudity Seco252 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept. File has been discussed twice with actual references to the law, Commons policy. This nomination has neither; "explicit nudity" is not a reason to take any action. For a file that is in use on many projects, this is mere disruption. -Pete F (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Image taken in Brazil, no indication of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep nobody is identifiable on this image. No violation of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil --High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per High Contrast. Infrogmation (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per High Contrast & Infrogmation. INeverCry 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorporates a 1950 image by Gil Elvgren (who died in 1980). It is unlikely that uploader holds copyright over that work, OTRS ticket notwithstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of Jeepers Peepers by Elvgren. —moogsi(blah) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Murals in The Dalles and Vale, Oregon
[edit]- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0181).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0185).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0191).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0193).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0195).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0200).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0203).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0228).jpg
- File:The Dalles Mural (Wasco County, Oregon scenic images) (wascDA0229).jpg
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 18.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 19.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 20.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 23.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 29.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 31.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 33.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 34.JPG
- File:The Dalles Commercial Historic District 35.JPG
- File:Post Office Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0032).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0013).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0016).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0071).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0072a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malD0079).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0065).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0069a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0071a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0075a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0077).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0078).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0082a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0083).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0087a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0088b).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0089a).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0090).jpg
- File:Vale Mural (Malheur County, Oregon scenic images) (malDA0094a).jpg
_(wascDA0181).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0185).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0191).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0193).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0195).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0200).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0203).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0228).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(wascDA0229).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0032).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0013).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0016).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0071).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0072a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malD0079).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0065).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0069a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0071a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0075a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0077).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0078).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0082a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0083).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0087a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0088b).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0089a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0090).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(malDA0094a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. All images are derivative works of the depicted murals. US law doesn't allow for free photography of copyrighted public two-dimensional artwork, and copying of mural is not de minimis. See also Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals. —— Werewombat (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could be PD-US-no notice. This could be checked with the Oregon Historical Society which is listed as source and as a professional historical organization (comparable to a museum)should be regarded as reputable, careful and conscientious until shown otherwise. The post office mural and possibly others could be PD-US, particularly if they were WPA projects. Need some specifics on the history of these, but suggest we cut the uploader some slack to get the necessary data.
- Seems to me that the burden is on the uploader to establish and communicate that the subjects are all freely licensed or in the public domain. In any event, I've done some additional research and {{PD-US-no notice}} does not apply to the majority of these images.
- Numbers 1-10, 12-15, 18: See The Dalles Mural Society, which provides details on each of the murals. The earliest of these murals was executed in 1992, and US copyright law doesn't require any notice for works authored after 1977. In addition, I had occasion to visit The Dalles today, and found copyright notices on every one of the murals.
- Number 11: This mural was also sponsored by The Dalles Mural Society, but no date of execution is listed on the web site. However it did have a copyright notice like the others (but without a date).
- Numbers 20-31, 33-37: See the Vale Heritage Mural Society, which provides details on each of the murals. The earliest of these murals was executed in 1993, and US copyright law doesn't require any notice for works authored after 1977.
- Number 32: This particular mural is absent from the Vale Heritage Mural Society web site. However, it is reasonable (especially given COM:PRP) to assume it falls into the same time frame as the other murals in Vale, i.e. after 1977.
- So it seems pretty clear that we can't apply {{PD-US-no notice}} to these images. For the 3 remaining images (numbers 16, 17, 19), I can't provide the additional information necessary to determine whether either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-USGov}} applies. Unless we can get the information to demonstrate that those 3 murals are PD, then they should be deleted. —— Werewombat (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom (COM:PRP). INeverCry 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Lucretius2
[edit]
Two small drawings of a sculpture sourced from a random Russian website: [4]. These pictures are unlikely to be uploader's own work. Also, these images do not show the Roman poet-philosopher Lucretius, but rather they are drawings of a bust known as Pseudo-Seneca. -- Pasicles (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- About these pictures of Lucretius
NO, no need to delete these pictures. Thank you for the special attention paid to them and for the active concern. These pictures really look like Pseudo-Socrat - the posture, the hair, but the facial features are definitely not the same. I don't know if anyone has painted Lucretius from nature. I'm not sure if Moses were sitting for his sculpture by Michelangelo or Madonna were personally standing in front of paintings of Raphael. These pictures have one primary function: They are illustrations of our best ideas about that person or event. They are only ILLUSTRATIONS. So are these pictures.
So, there is no need to delete or rename these pictures.--Gabriel VanHelsing (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - the issue here is one of copyright. Somebody drew this picture, clearly using the Pseudo-Seneca bust as a model. The copyright is either owned by the person who drew the picture, or the person who took the original photograph the sketch is based on. You have provided no evidence that the copyright holder has released this work to the public domain, and thus sadly, it will have to be deleted. Pasicles (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I too recognised this immediately as Pseudo-Seneca. The source appears to be this web site, now known as Wisdomsupreme.com. The date and artist are not given, making it impossible to know the copyright status, and the image is not needed as free photographs of the subject already exist. - Cengime (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete all book covers under copyright, several were allready deleted. NOT to delete File:Logo2 pug.jpg. I don't know what to do with File:Nos livres dans le monde.jpg just a scan with adresses.
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Les conférences de François Perroux.jpg
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Commedia dell'arte.jpg
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Exercisier.jpg
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Petit traité de manipulation à l'usage des honnêtes gens.jpg
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Se connaître pour-Bien vendre.jpg
- File:PUG-Ouvrage-Se connaître pour-Bien s'habiller au bureau.jpg
- File:Progresser en com.jpg
- File:Revue N21 cv10x15 large.jpg
- File:Sports de combat.jpg
- File:Normalite cv.jpg
- File:Sciences cognitives cv 10x15.jpg
- File:Copie de Europeanisation de la competition cv.jpg
- File:Elections en europe.jpg
- File:Dominants cv7x10.jpg
- File:Couverture Agir.jpg
- File:Construction sociale de la personne.jpg
- File:Optimisme comparatif.jpg
- File:Art, luxe te industrie2.jpg
- File:Curriere cv10x15L.jpg
- File:Art, luxe te industrie.jpg
- File:Aryanisation cv10x15.jpg
- File:Au fil des generations.jpg
- File:Businessmodels.jpg
- File:Managprojet.jpg
- File:Ecole en France.jpg
- File:Apprentissage autoregule cv.jpg
- File:Couverture droit pénal général.jpg
- File:Couverture droite de la famille.jpg
Traumrune (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted covers with a complex modern design. The remaining ones are very simple design or reproductions of old images. Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's ok, but should I (or you?) add the information on the talk pages of the remaining images? The uploads were made by someone who worked for some months in the enterprise, but didn't seem to have formal authorization for the uploads, the answer from PUG on my private e-mail (in french) was a bit "we are copyright owners, but do what you think right". Traumrune (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Some deleted, some kept per Yann. INeverCry 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Image taken in Brazil, no evidence of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil. --Andreas JN466 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment are these really identifiable people? —moogsi(blah) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep These individuals are not identifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept per Moogsi and Geo Swan. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Image taken in Brazil, no indication of consent. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Surely consent is only required for identifiable people? Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unless this is a private island, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (taken in a public place) So I vote keep. Nicoli Maege (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- You did read Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil, where it says "Just taking someone's photo without his or her permission (in private or public space) can violate their image right and gives them a right to compensation for moral damage"? --Conti|✉ 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I was apparently reading an incorrect section ie Canada or something no excuse Nicoli Maege (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:IDENT violation. Taken in Spain, no evidence of permission. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently Commons needs to delete en mass all photos taken in Spain which include identifiable people (unless we have documented explicit permission from the persons shown). Seems a shame to loose so much documentation of the culture of Spain, but the law is the law. Infrogmation (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Doble file of Sauris di Sopra.JPG, which was impossible to use because of the name Diego Cruciat (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not a news bulletin, and isn't a law of the DPRK, hence PD-DPRK would not apply. russavia (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I'm not so certain -- according to the description, it appears to be official government propaganda. Although interpreting law in translation is always problematic, I would think it falls under
- "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright."
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. We had Template:Kremlin.ru which was attempted to be used under {{PD-RU-exempt}} but it was consensus that videos/photographs do not equate to official documents (which the ordinance, decisions, directives are) and current news and bulletins would cover reporting of every day news. This is a screenshot of a propaganda video, which we would need a free licence for. russavia (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Russian copyright law found at {{PD-RU-exempt}} seems very detailed and exact about the specific items excluded from copyright. N. Korea's law, on the other hand, is a simple one-liner which isn't as specific as the former. Even if you dont consider government propaganda to be proper "news", it clearly falls under the category "bulletin" (which is exempted according to N. Korean law but is not included in Russia's {{PD-RU-exempt}}). Therefore, Keep. -A1candidate (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hongkie3 . . . .
I agree, even if you consider that "the documents of State management" can not be posted in Wikipedia, still the posting the picture is not against the DPR Korea Law and it's not in violation of the Wikipedia policy. We should Keep the picture for continuous public access in spirit of Wikipedia.
- Delete Invalid licences. The part about "documents of state management" only applies to textual documents (wikt:ko:문건), but this is not text. Besides, the template was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov because the latest copyright law contains a non-commercial restriction for such documents. The copyright statement quotes the Copyright Act of 2001 while it should quote the Copyright Act of 2006. If the uploader opposes the deletion of that template, then the uploader should go to COM:UR instead of adding a copyright statement based on that law to the file information page.
- The second part isn't a template either. Also, it only applies to public performances (wikt:공연) which are free of charge (wikt:ko:무료). It has to be possible to use Commons files for commercial purposes and for purposes which are not public performances. Besides, it is unclear if it is permitted to modify such works. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Stefan4 FASTILY (TALK) 06:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
