Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Because the account that owned this name was renamed and there is need for this talk page. Michael A. F. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User rename. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Rather fishy: http://www.hiregoaescorts.com/goa-escort-kiran.html and [1]. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Copyright violation: image copied from [2]. It seems this escort website just use pictures of models available on the internet (probably without permission). BrightRaven (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Like everything else uploaded by this account, this is a copyright violation. One source is here. Can someone please block this repeat offender? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyright violation. Uploader blocked for continuing to upload copyvios after warning russavia (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason why this medal should be under CC licence. It's by a non-goverment organisation and if you can trust Wikipedia it was designed by austrian artist that died in 1958 so it's not PD Plushy (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not reviewed while moved to Commons. Masur (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture was used to identify the location of the car. Last night 4/1/13 there was an attempt made to steal the car. As its the ONLY one in Adelaide, we need to hide its identity. Ignatzmax (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: eeing as the uploader is requesting deletion of an unused, low quality file per privacy concerns, I have deleted the file Tiptoety talk 02:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture was used to identify the location of the car. Last night 4/1/13 there was an attempt made to steal the car. As its the ONLY one in Adelaide, we need to hide its identity.. Ignatzmax (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Seeing as the uploader is requesting deletion of an unused, low quality file per privacy concerns, I have deleted the file Tiptoety talk 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A copyrighted sculpture, nominated for deletion due to COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense DR Denniss (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Reopened. The only nonsense here is the speedy closing of a non-copyvio DR. Since the snail,which has a copyright, is the stated subject of the image, albeit small, the question is whether the community thinks it is really de minimis or not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borovnica viaduct model.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not de minimis in my view as the snail is the stated subject of the image MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt it meets the threshold of originality; even among the arhitects the prevailing opinion is that such "industrial" arhitecture cannot be copyrighted. Think of how absurd would it be to have factories in a form of a pyramid just because it couldn't be a normal block since someone else's build a factory in a form of block before. --Miha (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a four-part building with linking tracts as well as a specific use of materials. I doubt it does not meet the threshold of originality and the burden of proof is on the uploader. See also the concluding remark at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotels in Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: nothing special to justify any copyright here Denniss (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable work; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 09:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not copyrightable Denniss (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable work; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep another totally absurd DR --Miha (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- What's so totally absurd?! It's original enough to be copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
»It's original enough to be copyrightable« --Eleassar
Well I don't think so. --Miha (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, ok. As you state that it is not original, can you provide some other case of such an inscription? If not, it is unique and thus original. Besides, as has been found elsewhere (e.g. here), there's no threshold of originality in Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god. Someone's lost it! Eleassar, get help. This is gettig out of hand.--Rude (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Get help yourself as you post such comments. Someone just doesn't know how to behave themselves. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: hardly copyrightable, also only a minor part of the image, a crop with focus may or may not abe a problem image though Denniss (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture of Chuck Norris in the window was probably not taken by the person who took the photo of the window → derivative work of a probably unfree image. El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted stamp. Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted stamp. Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted stamp. Eleassar (t/p) 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a probably unfree photograph. El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete; found here among many other hits. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
this picture owner is blocked user and vandal user:Mazandiran and this picture created with many pictures without any information and license MehdiTalk 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded it to the wrong place. Chrowe (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded accidentally - exact copy of File:Water drops by Ximeg 24.12.12-04-1.jpg Ximeg (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y hay datos erróneos. Rod6807 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y hay datos erróneos. Rod6807 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was uploaded for vandalism purposes, see file discription and the actions of the uploader on English and Greek Wikis. Fry1989 eh? 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Vandalism image. Not realistically useful. Jujutacular (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a real flag, no basis for use. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: POV Julo (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted photograph and design. Eleassar (t/p) 08:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete a copyrighted advertisment --Miha (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted photograph and design Julo (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This image violates the copyright of the certificate. Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Right. I neglected that when I uploaded the image. My apology.Chrishmt0423 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No detailed source of photo; license appears incorrect also. We hope (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- We really don't know where the photo came from nor whether it's own work, used with permission of the subject, etc. We hope (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears not to be original but a copy and crop. Similar photos are copyrighted. We hope (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- eBay auction
- complete photo from the auction.
- Photo from sequence has a 1971 copyright to United Artists. We hope (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused poorer-quality version of File:Japanese Imperial Seal.svg. Alkari (?), 4 January 2013, 01:51 UTC 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Very strong Keep -- this is a historic heraldic image by en:Hugo Gerhard Ströhl, who has articles on seven Wikipedias. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it documents what Europeans thought the Japanese imperial emblem was in 1899... AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Very strong Keep - the SVG is a bad newby work in any factual way, the normal Common Way. --
ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - Very strong Keep - per previous arguments.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio: http://www.google.com.co/imgres?q=foto+oficial+juan+manuel+santos&um=1&hl=es&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=0cNPPskq6w-92M:&imgrefurl=http://www.puertosalgar-cundinamarca.gov.co/noticias.shtml%3Fapc%3DCnxx-1-%26x%3D2751380&docid=KMGIRPZxg03UuM&imgurl=http://puertosalgar-cundinamarca.gov.co/apc-aa-files/66613131373530623532643962323934/Juan_Mamuel_Santos_Calderon.jpg&w=350&h=454&ei=Qz7mUKTZKYn-9QTiooGABg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=341&sig=114461731468023015428&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=122&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:85&tx=74&ty=69 Coronades (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
doubtful source, possible copyvio Coronades (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission from JoongangEntertainmentAndSPORTS Puramyun31 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia This architectural work of Artur Tarkhanyan and Sashur Kalashyan was established in 1967.
- File:DziDzernagapert.jpg
- File:Erevan - Genocide Monument1 - October 1972.jpg
- File:Genocide Memorial, Yerevan.jpg
- File:Genocide Yerevan memorial.jpg
- File:Erevan - Le mémorial du génocide 01.JPG
- File:The Armenian genocide.jpg
- File:Sunny Tsitsernakaberd.jpg
- File:Tzitsernakapert.jpg
- File:Yerevan Genocide Memorial 01.jpg
- File:Yerevan Tsitsernakaberd.jpg
- File:DziDzernagapert - eternal flame.jpg
- File:Erevan - Genocide Monument2 - October 1972.jpg
- File:Erevan - Genocide Monument3 - October 1972.jpg
- File:Tsitsernakaberd Memorial in Yerevan.JPG
- File:Tsitsernakaberd memorial and museum to the Armenian Genocide.jpg
- File:Tsitsernakaberd Genocide Memorial Yerevan.jpg
- File:Památník genocidy.jpg
- File:April 24, 2011 marking the 96th anniversary of Armenian Genocide.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission, can be upload to local wikipedia as fairuse Motopark (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not same than in webside--Motopark (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Published previously on facebook seems weird for a free licence PierreSelim (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Herge died in 1983 so "PD-70" does not apply John of Reading (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan. (see also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kobe Luminarie (2008).jpg).
- File:Kobe Luminarie 01.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 02.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 03.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 04.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 05.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 06.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 07.JPG
- File:Kobe Luminarie 08.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Apparently hosted since 2008 via http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/C1rwAUYBjJS._SL600_.jpg (last modified: 09.2008) via http://www.jemsite.com/forums/f36/killer-guitar-players-who-use-the-les-paul-98413.html Gunnex (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Boston Globe's website is copyrighted, not CC license shizhao (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No rationale why this stamp from 1945 would be public domain in the source country. Eleassar (t/p) 10:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The picture was not taken by the Flickr user but by his wedding photographer: “These are just my favorites out of the bazillions of pictures taken by our wedding photographer. […] All photos taken by Jessica Norene: www.facesbyjessica.com”. Can we assume that he had the right to release them under a CC-license? Maybe some kind of "work for hire"? El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Official logo Odessey (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Source page says "Copyright © Flixster, Inc" John of Reading (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Suspect copyright violation: The same picture can be found here, credited to Noelia Orozco / Diario El Tiempo. El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- copyright infringement See the.--i.е. v-mail 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Saryan died in 1972, this work is still copyrighted. Takabeg (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong license. It has been transferred here from ro.wp, where it was labelled as "Source: http://www.imageant.com", with an unsubstantiated PD claim. —Andrei S. Talk 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Transferred from ro.wp, where it was labelled as "scanned from the book 'Monograph of Târgu Neamț'". —Andrei S. Talk 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. The name of painter is Sarkis Muradyan. But the name of uploader is Kanayan. There is no proof of {{FAL}}. Takabeg (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable plaque; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has serious issues with obeying copyright rules (See talk page), so Commons:Assume good faith doesn't apply. Evidence that this is unlikely to by a legitimate own-work:
- Web-resolution
- No EXIF data
- Uploader's other contemporaneous images are made by a Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS.
- Therefore, the Precautionary principle applies and this image ought to be deleted--GrapedApe (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio from Flick Mel22 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y hay datos erróneos. Rod6807 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has serious issues with obeying copyright rules (See talk page), so Commons:Assume good faith doesn't apply. Evidence that this is unlikely to by a legitimate own-work:
- Uploader's other contemporaneously uploaded images are made by a Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS ($200 camera), but this is a NIKON D3X, a professional $3,000 dollar camera.
- Much better quality that uploader's other images. See the poor quality of File:Eagle Statue.JPG, also a photo of a statue, compared to this well-created composition, complete with professional focusing.
- EXIF data shows a 2009 date, but uploader shows a 2011 date.
- Therefore, the Precautionary principle applies and this image ought to be deleted--GrapedApe (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y hay datos erróneos. Rod6807 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably copyvio from here , like the other images of this contributor Mel22 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a scanned picture. This picture was used on the cover of a French magazine in 1987: [3]. "Own work" claim is not credible. BrightRaven (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This has no evidence of permission and is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} due to the bear. Stefan4 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
not sure why this should be ملكية عامة (Public domain) McZusatz (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y he subido ahora a Wikimedia Commons una mejor versión del mismo. Rod6807 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
no author, no date; if taken around 1930, the photographer could be even living 194.79.55.130 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Stefan4 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, Wikivoyage doesn't tell who the photographer is. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced on Wikivoyage. Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced on Wikivoyage. Stefan4 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation - Simon Villeneuve 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
is this in scope? McZusatz (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that the Flickr user is the photographer of all the images in this collage. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo of illegal project 193.172.24.226 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio from here Mel22 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio from here Mel22 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
D'Avino died in 2004, impossible that uploader is the creator (Source "Own work"), who can put it under a CC-license. Paulae (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
D'Avino died in 2004, impossible that uploader is the creator (Source "Own work"), who can put it under a CC-license. Paulae (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Taken from a video probably. Possible copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The camera metadata says the author is 'Eva Ercolanese' which is not the name of the flickr account owner. So, I'm not sure if the flickr account owner has the copyright over this image. Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I assume that Eva Ercolanese is the photographer of the Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba campaign (Pérez Rubalcaba is the leader of the main opposition party in Spain) and therefore, it's the campaign the owner of the copyright. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I will pass this image since I trust Admin Ecemaml's explanation here. It might be an innocent mistake...and that the picture was taken for the Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba campaign. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems like Copyright violations from here, this picture - screenshout Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Shortly after I uploaded this I realized it might have a copyright problem. The NASDAQ logo and other logos are trademarks and I tried to address that by putting the trademark warning on this file. However, because this display isn't the exterior of a building, United States FOP exceptions probably wouldn't apply so the computer displays might be considered an artwork for purposes of copyright. On the other hand, it's possible that the displays fall below the threshold of originality that may be required for a subject to be copyrightable. I would prefer to err on the side of caution by deleting this file and I've asked admins to do so but they have declined because they are not sure that the file should be deleted. The Commons deletion policy says "Per Commons licensing policy, Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Commons also does not host "fair use" copies of non-free content (see Commons:Fair use), other than some non-free symbols of the WMF projects". I prefer that this file be deleted unless it is clear that there are not copyright problems. Pine✉ 20:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Between Commons:De minimis and Commons:Threshold of originality, I'm pretty sure this image is okay. Most of the screens contain only a small amount of text and colored bars, and moreover the picture is of the setup as a whole rather than any particular display. A few screens on the right display photos but they're de minimis. Since you're concerned about legal risk I'll go ahead and strip your name from the file history - but in order to do so I need you to first release all your changes to this file description page under the Creative Commons CC0 Waiver 1.0. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree to do so. --Pine✉ 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Note that it may still be possible to connect you to the image through this DR. I can't offer any guarantees. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. --Pine✉ 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Note that it may still be possible to connect you to the image through this DR. I can't offer any guarantees. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree to do so. --Pine✉ 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
1935 painting by American author is copyrighted unless we can establish otherwise. Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of printed, designed work, with no credible claim of de minimis. Jarry1250 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Used in the official website of the film. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 1.jpg
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 2.jpg
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 3.jpg
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 4.jpg
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 5.jpg
- File:Kralice Fabrikada 6.jpg
- Delete Speedy. canburak in flickr seems to be an habitual violator. Takabeg (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not a simple logo. Jespinos (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Author of painting is not yet dead 70 years. Copyright is with his heir. Just owning the picture (as is indicated in the source) is not enough. We would need proof that the owner is the heir or that he has obtained the copyright from the heir. -- Cecil (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Other pictures with same problem:
- File:Ju.An Bakkers - Skalar.jpg
- File:Ju.An Bakkers - Dädalos.jpg
- File:Ju.An Bakers - Fisch.jpg
- File:Ju.An Bakkers - Blumenstrauss.jpg
- File:Ju.An Bakkers - Los pioneros del progreso.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a video screenshot. Jespinos (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No proper sourcing (unless the Russian page has some information that didn't make it to Wikipedia) and a US licence for a work that is not US. -- Cecil (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan
- File:Nigar Rafibayli statue in Ganja.jpg
- File:Bəhram Gur.jpg
- File:Rashid Behbudov-1.JPG
- File:011centermugam.jpg
- File:015mugamcent.jpg
- File:Centermugam013.jpg
- File:Fantain 1007.jpg
- File:Mermaid fountain.jpg
- File:Baku01 1006.jpg
- File:Baku01 1009.jpg
- File:Fontan 1034.jpg
- File:Набрань 1921.jpg
- File:Baku09 1008.jpg
- File:Bakı 1676.jpg
- File:Alishrafalizade.JPG
- File:Ganja city fauntain.jpg
- File:Mirzaaliahmedov.JPG
- File:The monument to Heydar Aliyev in Lerik.JPG
- File:The bust of Heydar Aliyev in Yardymly.JPG
- File:Heydar Aliyev.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev billboard3.jpg
- File:Shushi085.JPG
- File:Shushi086.JPG
- File:Stepanakert006.JPG
- File:Stepanakert011.JPG
- File:Nelson-Stepanyan-Shushi-DSC.jpg
- File:Jsme naše hory.jpg
- File:Karabagh statue.jpg
- File:Mamikyevbabik.jpg
- File:We Are Our Mountains.jpg
- File:War Memorial at Town Entry.jpg
- File:Azerbaijan State Oil Academy inside 4.jpg
- File:Monument of Bakikhanov.jpg
- File:Muwvig heykal.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Some of the objects (File:We Are Our Mountains.jpg, File:Karabagh statue.jpg, File:Nelson-Stepanyan-Shushi-DSC.jpg, File:Stepanakert011.JPG, etc.) located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and are not subject to the legislation of Azerbaijan. --Hayk (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment According to this precedent, until major powers recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, we must apply the laws of the recognized government of the area. Takabeg (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a part of the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was split in 15 internationally recognised countries, and all 15 of them lack commercial FOP, so this is presumably something inherited from an old Soviet law which hasn't been changed anywhere in the former Soviet Union. Is there any reason to assume that the government of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has changed the law? If the unrecognised government has a law which says essentially the same thing, then there's no question that the images have to be deleted (assuming that the monuments are recent, of course). Without any information to the contrary, I think that we should assume that every part of the Soviet Union, whether controlled by an internationally recognised government or not, lacks commercial FOP. Anyway, the issue with FOP in breakaway countries must have been discussed somewhere, since there are some partially unrecognised countries which have a partially different FOP situation compared to the internationally recognised country (e.g. Serbia/Kosovo and PRC/ROC). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As it turned out, there are no FOP in NKR (see article 16 of № ՀՕ-211 from 31.05.2002). --Hayk (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Post-1923 works by Ludovico Cavaleri
[edit]- File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Cavaleri Ludovico, Al Calambrone.jpg (1934, undelete in 2030)
- File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Cavaleri Ludovico, Da Miramare (Savona) o Il Porto di Savona da Miramare.jpg (1930, undelete in 2026)
- File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Cavaleri Ludovico, Mattino in Liguria.jpg (1925, undelete in 2021)
This is a complex case, so bear with me. Works by Italian artists who died 1940 or later were in copyright in Italy in 1996 due to 50pma + wartime extensions of 6 years for works published before 1948. Therefore any works published 1923 or later by Ludovico Cavaleri (died 1942), like the above, remain in copyright in the United States until at least 2019. These images are tagged with OTRS permission, but the permission is not from the author or their heirs, but from the Cariplo Foundation, who owns the physical paintings. Despite their statement to the contrary in OTRS, I do not believe the Cariplo Foundation is likely to be the copyright holder of these works, as rights to fine art are normally reserved to the authors in Europe and not transferred to buyers or galleries. I've sent e-mail to the Cariplo Foundation requesting clarification. --Dcoetzee (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Please see a similar request here. Conclusion: reliable statement of ownership of the rights by OTRS ticket. OTRS agents can never go into detective mode and request original contracts or similar as proof. --M.casanova (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not acting as an OTRS agent but as a Commons administrator. I contacted them directly using my personal e-mail account. I don't need original contracts, all I want is some kind of official statement from the Cariplo Foundation that they own the copyright to the paintings and not just the photographs. If you're authorized to make such a statement, please do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- The response I received was: "La Fondazione Cariplo è proprietaria dei tre dipinti che mi ha segnalato, e pertanto, in base al diritto italiano, è titolare di ogni altro diritto riferito al bene." [The Cariplo Foundation is the owner of three paintings mentioned, and therefore, according to the Italian law, is entitled to any other rights related to the asset.] I remain skeptical of this statement - the respondent seems to believe that merely owning the paintings confers their copyright as well, and that is simply not how Italian law works. I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to attempt to explain this, but at the moment I'm maintaining that this is further evidence that the OTRS statement is illegitimate. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- We need a native Italian speaker to tell us if "proprietaria" has a connotation of copyright ownership, more so than "owner" does in English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Since we know that, in Italy, owning a work does not mean that you own the copyright, the Foundation's statement is wrong on its face. "We own the paintings... therefore" is wrong. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
A faithful reproduction of the coat of arms depicted at http://www.robert-kuhar.com/vg/Zbornik_Visnja_Gora_w.pdf. Per Commons:Coats of arms, it is a copyright violation. Eleassar (t/p) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS pending --109.182.154.20 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is an official symbol. You can simply revert to earlier version. I can prove that I have the source svg file I created on my own on my computer back home. It is also slightly different from the official one (with the official I man the one which you can see in the flag exposed infront of the town hall) since at the time there was no written guideline available online. --Miha (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would qualify as an "official text" (or accompanying material) as demanded by the Slovene law. Any difference is negligible. Frankly, I don't see it at all. The coat of arms is clearly based on the cited page and qualifies as a reproduction in my opinion. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- But it is based/drawn according to on official text. And there are plenty of differences (as well as discrepancies): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9a/20120414065433%21Coat_of_arms_of_Vi%C5%A1nja_Gora.svg --Miha (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't see this older version. It's based on [4], which can't be verified without a login password. As for the official text, if the coat of arms has been drawn upon a text, it would be no problem. As it is stated that it has been derived from another image (header_01.jpg), it is not probably not. The depiction would be official, if it was published in the Official Gazette, however I haven't found it there. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The official website is no longer online (to my best knowledge it was maintained till last year by one of the town officials, who was not elected anymore...) It was only a low res image of the flag (200px) which I used to capture the right colors. The coat of arms is described as follows: Grb vsebuje dvostolpni grad na modri podlagi s pozlačenim priklenjenim polžem, simbolom Višnje Gore. It is impossible to recreate details and draw it in high quality vector format from a 200px raster file. Unfortunately I cannot access my computer in Slovenia while I am abroad, but I probably saved the this file too. Later on I simply took the e-book version of the anniversary publication about Višnja Gora and created vector version by redrawing from it. I can try to reach the editor of the publication (copyright holder) to ask him for OTRS confirmation. Please give me some time as the exam period is nearing and I don't have enough time to find his contact data. --Miha (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It appears no copyrightable aspects of the source were used in drawing the SVG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work (by J. Kastelic?). Nominated for deletion due to COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to come in touch with the author of the statue. It is clear violation according to the current copyright law, but I am sure that Mr. Kastelic would be proud to have picture of his work published. --Miha (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture, nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS pending --109.182.154.20 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: {{OTRS pending}} King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture; per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons. Six months after the last DR, the OTRS-confirmed permission is still missing. Eleassar (t/p) 07:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- See ticket 6833640. The head of the school allowed usage under the terms of CC BY SA 3.0 licence. --Miha (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no ticket with this number. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is the "head of the school" even allowed to give such a permission? We'd need the architect's permission, not the school's. darkweasel94 10:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. This has already been discussed here, where this statement has even been attributed to a peer-reviewed article, yet Miha evidently keeps insisting that the headmaster's permission is sufficient. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not even needed to he honest. It is way too simple building. And secondly, Google Street View which IS commercial product didn't have to sign any contracts regarding copyright law, which only confirms my alterative intepretation of the law which allows 2D reproductions for commercial purposes and prohibits 3D reproduction. --Miha (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know for sure what Google signed, and do you know for sure that they are not actually at risk of being sued in the future? darkweasel94 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not even needed to he honest. It is way too simple building. And secondly, Google Street View which IS commercial product didn't have to sign any contracts regarding copyright law, which only confirms my alterative intepretation of the law which allows 2D reproductions for commercial purposes and prohibits 3D reproduction. --Miha (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is well known fact, that Google was not allowed to expand its Street View service to Slovenia for couple of years until their data processing centre was moved to EU (faces and car licence plates are considered personal data and as such is is not allowed to export it outside the EU teritory)[5]. Apart from this, governmental organisations had no other remarks. If Google were to sign a contract with an architec of every single copyrightbale building (by the standards set here on Commons), it wouldn't even be possible to start the project. --Miha (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not well acquainted with the situation regarding Google, but the phrasing of the act itself (Article 55), a peer-reviewed article ([6], pg. 67: "reproductions [of architectural works] may also not be used to gain commercial benefits (e.g. by printing postcards depicting the work).") and a court case [7] all clearly state and prove that 2D reproduction of copyrighted 3D works for commercial purposes is not allowed in Slovenia. The depicted work is also not too simple - it is a recognisable modern building. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons
A copyrighted flag, not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 08:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is the picture of the town hall. It is not my problem, if the flag is that big. Furthermore flag is official and therfore the copyright does not apply. --Miha (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's clear that the image was cropped so that both the flag and the plaque with the relief bust are depicted in entirety. These are therefore not de minimis. Besides, municipal or town flags are not considered "official texts" (or their accompanying material), as demanded by the Slovene law. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep you can't take a picture of the town hall's main entrance without capturing the flag and bust, but they take a small portion of the pic so it is de minimis. How do you know wheather the image was cropped or it was taken with camera turned over and why does it matter?--Sporti (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course you can: for the copyrighted coat of arms, one has to crop the image just above the lamp, and for the bust, the right border should go between the two windows and to the left of the plaque with the bust. At least to me it is clear that the image was cropped so that it shows the entire flag, the entire right plaque and the right window. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a cropped version as File:Višnja Gora town hall cropped.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
je suis Marzena Sowa et je n'apprécie pas du tout cette image. Je vais en proposer une autre très rapidement. Merci de respecter ça. Marzizizi (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Please provide the replacement before nominating this for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Works by Umberto Brunelleschi
[edit]- File:Charles-Marie Widor par Umberto Brunelleschi.jpg
- File:Théodore Dubois par Umberto Brunelleschi.jpg
- File:Émile Waldteufel par Umberto Brunelleschi.jpg
Umberto Brunelleschi (see Category:Umberto Brunelleschi) died in 1949. Although an Italian, he was based in France - in either country, his works remain in copyright in the source country until 70 years after his death (2020). The files are marked {{PD-Art}} without arguments so they provide no explanation. They are PD in the United States, predating 1923, so they could be reuploaded to En as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Can also be added to Category:Undelete in 2020. --Dcoetzee (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Works by Alberto Burri
[edit]- File:Nero 1.jpg
- File:SACCO.jpg
- File:ROSSO PLASTICA.jpg
- File:Sestante.jpg
- File:BURRI SZ1.jpg
- File:Dettaglio Cretto Burri Gibellina.jpg
- File:GrandeCrettoBurri.jpg
- File:Cretto di Burri.jpg
Alberto Burri was an Italian artist who died in 1995 so his works are still under copyright and should be deleted. The "Cretto" (an example of land art) makes no exception because there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. --Jaqen (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Now it is used. This template permits to include a link to Wikipedia articles, with internationalisation. It should exist an area named theme. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- What? Sorry! I fail to understand. Is this Wikidata? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, in this moment, Wikidata is only for interwiki. Personnaly, I wish for the future we can create phrases that we can include as description on Commons. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- What? Sorry! I fail to understand. Is this Wikidata? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Templates are computationally expensive, and there is a limit to the number that can exist on a page. While we do have templates for text that is used very frequently, I see no point in templating text that may be used five or ten times, particularly when it simply duplicates the name of the category into which the images will be put. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by JJ Thomson Cathode Ray 2.png Kurzon (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not quite the same. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that this image consistly only of geometric trivial shapes: yes, text is trivial, but that colourful shapes around - in my opinion, are not trivial. What do others think? rubin16 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No participation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This file is an exact, but lower-resolution, version of File:Specimen1Obv.jpg. Mike Peel (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- no problem with the deletion but the links must be preserved and converted to File:Specimen1Obv.jpg --Madelgarius (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo's.
- File:Logo SondageCE.png
- File:LOGO ChequeCadeau.jpg
- File:LOGO MEYCLUB.jpg
- File:Trophée des CE.JPG
- File:Logo ProwebCE.jpg
Savhñ 12:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Double - Datei ist auf Wikimedia mit einer höheren Auflösung vorhanden: "File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof oben RB+S-Bahn.jpg" und stammt von user:Pedelecs Pedelecs (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Information boards in Category:Lahinja
[edit]Copyrighted information boards; per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Soy quien subió el archivo y hay datos erróneos. Rod6807 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable information board; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 13:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Northbrook Hall.jpg Bellayet (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Horrible photo!!! 90.5.224.181 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Anyway, the image needs a permission from photographer Alexandre Schilling, who seems not to be identical to the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Turelio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Nawab's Shahbagh Garden Dhaka 1904.jpg Bellayet (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Nawab's Shahbagh Garden Dhaka 1904.jpg Bellayet (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Nawab's Shahbagh Garden dhaka 1904 02.jpg Bellayet (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I, the uploader, request that this file should be removed, as the uploader no longer wants to give permissions to Wikimedia Commons. Meow 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. You cannot retract your permission. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Northbrook Hall.jpg Bellayet (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Bellayet (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep
speedy close,mistaken and broken duplicate deletion request. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The user has re-added the confusing deletion/duplicate tag, I have repaired it. Apparently considered a duplicate of File:Imambara Hosseini Dallan Dhaka 1904.jpg. But these are not exact duplicate files, they are different versions of the same image. I can see no reason to delete either, we normally keep all versions/revisions of an image. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Photo taken by Kai and uploaded by Theo. There is no evidence that Kai has granted permission to Theo. Stefan4 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep All uploads by user Theo is attributed to Kai Niermann and on http://wikitravel.org/de/Datei:Mornerouge.jpeg there is a
- Urheber: Kai Niermann
- Quelle: von mir fotografiert
I agree that it looks "funny" but then again a president named William was called Bill :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Same person. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality photos of car.
- File:Sentra tire and hubcap.jpg
- File:1994 Nissan Sentra Front.jpg
- File:1994 Nissan Sentra.jpg
- File:1994 Nissan Sentra interior.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep They can be useful on Wikimedia projects and they aren't that low quality, nor do they have any major problems like blurring. I don't see any reason to delete them. Michael Barera (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept per Michael--Morning ☼ (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text documents appeared to be marketing materials.
- File:中大期货每日早讯121228.pdf
- File:期货早报121228.pdf
- File:Crm 棕油、菜油期货pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 玉米期货pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 小麦期货pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 贵金属期货pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 股指期货pdf.pdf
- File:20121228天胶早报.pdf
- File:20121228天胶.pdf
- File:20121228软商品早报.pdf
- File:20121228期货钢材煤焦.pdf
- File:20121228金属期货.pdf
- File:20121228金属.pdf
- File:20121228甲醇.pdf
- File:20121228国债仿真早报.pdf
- File:20121228贵金属期货.pdf
- File:20121228贵金属.pdf
- File:20121228豆类油脂.pdf
- File:20121228股指期货早报.pdf
- File:20121228PTA期货.pdf
- File:20121228LLDPE.pdf
- File:20121228LLDPE期货早报.pdf
- File:期货化工品1227.pdf
- File:中国因素与融资需求百分之二十铜价反弹或将结束.PDF
- File:黄金早报121227.pdf
- File:大地点睛20121227.pdf
- File:大地对冲与套利日报121227.pdf
- File:原油12月报27.pdf
- File:外盘能源市场简评1227.pdf
- File:天胶12月报27.pdf
- File:天胶月报1212.pdf
- File:能源化工月报1212.pdf
- File:甲醇月报1212.pdf
- File:甲醇12月报27.pdf
- File:股指12月报27.pdf
- File:PTA12月报27.pdf
- File:Crm 玉米1227pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 小麦1227pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 天胶1227pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 股指1227pdf.pdf
- File:Crm PTA月报pdf.pdf
- File:Crm L1227pdf.pdf
- File:20121227天胶期货.pdf
- File:20121227期货天胶.pdf
- File:20121227软商品期货.pdf
- File:20121227期货甲醇.pdf
- File:20121227期货豆类.pdf
- File:20121227期货贵金属.pdf
- File:20121227期货白糖.pdf
- File:20121227农产品期货.pdf
- File:20121227国债仿真期货.pdf
- File:20121227金属期货.pdf
- File:20121227贵金属期货.pdf
- File:20121227钢材焦煤期货.pdf
- File:20121227钢材期货.pdf
- File:20121227玻璃期货.pdf
- File:20121227PTA期货.pdf
- File:20121227L期货.pdf
- File:20121210中国11月份宏观经济数据点评（专题14）(2).pdf
- File:201212甲醇期货套利方案.pdf
- File:201212华东钢铁产业链调研报告.pdf
- File:201212玻璃期货套利.pdf
- File:世界各大交易所品种保证金（周更新）12-24.pdf
- File:卓创咨询塑料行业研究周刊（20121123）.pdf
- File:外盘常见问题.pdf
- File:世界重要经济数据公布时间与详解.pdf
- File:世界各大交易所主要交易品种(网站).pdf
- File:世界各大交易所品种保证金（周更新）12-17.pdf
- File:世界各大交易所品种保证金（周更新）09-24.pdf
- File:人民币货币期货.pdf
- File:进口成本计算.pdf
- File:换算公式.pdf
- File:汇丰银行账户开户及网上理财指南(更新).pdf
- File:2012年外盘休市放假安排.pdf
- File:早报(1226.pdf
- File:能源化工现货日报1226.pdf
- File:黄金早报121226.pdf
- File:钢材早报121226.pdf
- File:谷物早报20121226.pdf
- File:大地股指期货早报2012-12-26.pdf
- File:20121226期货L.pdf
- File:PTA全息图（2012.12.26）.pdf
- File:玻璃全息图（2012-12-26）.pdf
- File:20121226金属.pdf
- File:20121226豆油类.pdf
- File:20121226钢材早报.pdf
- File:中大期货每日早讯121224.pdf
- File:早报(1224).pdf
- File:中国房地产投资加速.pdf
- File:早报(61).pdf
- File:原油12月报.pdf
- File:原油1221.pdf
- File:有色金属1220.pdf
- File:新闻要点.pdf
- File:油脂现货持稳 市场心态平稳.pdf
- File:橡胶、甲醇早报(1225).pdf
- File:橡胶、甲醇早报(50).pdf
- File:天胶12月报.pdf
- File:外盘金属市场简评.pdf
- File:软商品1220.pdf
- File:农产品整体反弹 可可收跌.pdf
- File:金属1219.pdf
- File:焦炭1220.pdf
- File:美豆受1400支撑反弹 美棉站上76 1224.pdf
- File:甲醇1220.pdf
- File:甲醇12月报.pdf
- File:甲醇1219.pdf
- File:化工品早报(1225).pdf
- File:黄金早报121225.pdf
- File:黄金早报121218.pdf
- File:贵金属早报1220.pdf
- File:贵金属1219.pdf
- File:国际原油上涨承压.pdf
- File:股指量化日内策略——2012年12月24 日.pdf
- File:大地油脂油料早报1218.pdf
- File:大地油脂油料早报1225.pdf
- File:大地油脂油料周评121224.pdf
- File:钢材1220.pdf
- File:钢材1219.pdf
- File:豆类期货1221.pdf
- File:钢材早报121223.pdf
- File:钢材早报121221.pdf
- File:钢材现货周报（20121221）.pdf
- File:股指1220.pdf
- File:钢材早报121225.pdf
- File:股指12月报.pdf
- File:谷物早报20121221.pdf
- File:谷物早报20121225.pdf
- File:大地股指期货周报2012-12-24(1).pdf
- File:大地股指期货早报2012-12-25.pdf
- File:大地股指期货早报2012-12-18.pdf
- File:财政悬崖悬而未决 金银市场风险依旧.pdf
- File:玻璃期货保持高活跃度.pdf
- File:大地点睛20121224.pdf
- File:玻璃1220.pdf
- File:白糖早报20121225.pdf
- File:白糖早报20121221.pdf
- File:白糖1219.pdf
- File:白糖早报.pdf
- File:PTA上行再承压.pdf
- File:L早报1220.pdf
- File:PTA 1221.pdf
- File:PTA12月报.pdf
- File:L 1221.pdf
- File:L 1219.pdf
- File:Crm棉花1221 pdf.pdf
- File:Crm玉米1221 pdf.pdf
- File:Crm小麦1221 pdf.pdf
- File:Crm贵金属1221 pdf.pdf
- File:Crm股指1221 pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 棕榈油1225pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 铜1225pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 玻璃1225pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 甲醇1225pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 股指1225pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 1224棕榈油pdf.pdf
- File:20121224期货投资周策略.pdf
- File:20121225PTA早报.pdf
- File:20121224期货刚才早报.pdf
- File:20121224期货白糖早报.pdf
- File:20121224期货PTA早报.pdf
- File:1219 大地早班车.pdf
- File:2012.12.25-外盘能源市场简评.pdf
- File:2012.12.17-外盘能源市场简评.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Appear to be marketing material. Unused.
- File:股指量化日内策略报告-2012-12-31.pdf
- File:农产品涨跌互现 投资者清仓过节.pdf
- File:20121231天胶.pdf
- File:多空双双加仓 期指震荡上行——股指机构持仓报告1231.pdf
- File:大地早班车12-31.pdf
- File:20121231甲醇.pdf
- File:20121231豆类油脂.pdf
- File:20121231白糖.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Appear to be corporate materials
- File:黄金早报130108.pdf
- File:橡胶、甲醇早报(130108).pdf
- File:白糖早报20130108.pdf
- File:化工早报(130108).pdf
- File:Crm 棕榈130108pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 甲醇130108pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 贵金属130108pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 股指130108pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 玻璃130108pdf.pdf
- File:20130108软商品.pdf
- File:20130108国债仿真.pdf
- File:20130108钢焦.pdf
- File:20130108白糖.pdf
- File:20130108玻璃.pdf
- File:2013年大地期货宏观年报.pdf
- File:2013年大地期货美元展望.pdf
- File:2013.01.08-外盘能源市场简评.pdf
- File:农产品延续调整 油脂相对较强.pdf
- File:暂避悬崖 甲醇放量大涨.pdf
- File:油脂现货持稳 市场心态平稳.pdf
- File:郑糖震荡走高 仍有上行空间.pdf
- File:油脂低位运行 前期低点多单谨慎持有.pdf
- File:油脂减仓下行 多看少动等机会.pdf
- File:上市满月 玻璃期货封于涨停.pdf
- File:连玉米重心上移 表现相对坚挺.pdf
- File:抛储配额政策VS宏观回暖 继续关注09、05套利.pdf
- File:连焦连续上行 防范高位调整风险.pdf
- File:金银上演过山车行情 下周有望小幅反弹.pdf
- File:连豆期价相对抗跌 连豆粕走势仍将疲弱.pdf
- File:宏观利好 PVC连续推升.pdf
- File:股指延续涨势，本周或短暂回调——期指周报.pdf
- File:国际原油小幅震荡上行.pdf
- File:股指量化日内策略报告-2013-1-7.pdf
- File:Crm 农产品周报130107pdf.pdf
- File:成本支撑 PTA反弹行情延续.pdf
- File:多空双双减仓 期指或短暂回调——股指机构持仓报告.pdf
- File:Crm 股指套利周报130107pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 能源化工1307pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 煤化工建材料周报130107pdf.pdf
- File:Crm 钢材周报130107pdf.pdf
- File:20130107天胶早报.pdf
- File:20130107软商品早报.pdf
- File:20130107期货L.pdf
- File:20130107金属早报.pdf
- File:20130107煤焦早报.pdf
- File:20130107甲醇.pdf
- File:20130107国债仿真早报.pdf
- File:20130107贵金属.pdf
- File:20130107贵金属早报.pdf
- File:20130107股指早报.pdf
- File:20130107豆类.pdf
- File:20130107钢材.pdf
- File:20130107玻璃早报.pdf
- File:20130107白糖.pdf
- File:20130107L早报.pdf
- File:20130107PVC早报.pdf
File:油脂现货持稳 市场心态平稳.pdf has been deleted previously
moogsi(blah) 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marianathan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Sr. Amala.jpg
- File:The power of Youth.gif
- File:Don Jayasoosai SdC.jpg
- File:DGRC Chennai.JPG
- File:Parents.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Calofdedead (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Unknown year of creation, seems newly designed; no freedom of panorama in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ellesar, please keep your messages and invitations, I do not want to take part in your "legal amuck". --Beroesz (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: COM:TOO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this is own work: low resolution, missing exif, taken from www.baltan.fw.hu. In addition, there is no evidence that the sculptural features of the door are below the threshold of originality (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is my own work. It was made by me. You can find me on the archived version of the source website. [8] (Link from the original BalTan website: https://web.archive.org/web/20050117152045/http://www.baltan.fw.hu/index.html) If you click to the name in the middle (Hornyák Sándor; alias beroesz&freemail_dot_hu) you can send me an e-mail, and I will anvser it.
Low resolution: not ground to delete it. Missing exif: sorry, at the end of 1990's there was no digital camera for poor rural students in Hungary, the image was digitalized by scanner. Beroesz (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per others. Nominator blocked for doing useless DRs. Yann (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emerson860 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Considering users upload profile (+8 copyvios) and 2013er uploads (3x = 2x copyvio + 1x this one): Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysterious white border.
Gunnex (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emerson860 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Given this user's history of uploading copyvios, I don't believe anything he uploads is actually "own work" as claimed. These files should be deleted per the precautionary principle.
Rosenzweig τ 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emerson860 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Quite unlikely that Emerson860 (talk · contributions · Statistics), a blocked serial copyright violator, is the creator of all these official symbols of Brazilian municipalities or did care about copyright, providing - per COM:EVID - appropriate evidences to demonstrate either that these files are in the public domain or that the copyright owners have released them under a suitable licence.
- File:Cabo de Santo Agostinho Coat.jpg
- File:Cabo de Santo Agostinho Flag.png
- File:Brasão de Camaragibe (PE).jpg
- File:Bandeira de Itapissuma (PE).JPG
- File:Abreu e Lima Coat.png
- File:Abreu e Lima Flag.PNG
- File:Bandeira de Lagoa grande (PE).jpg
- File:Bandeira de Orocó.jpg
- File:Brasão de Orocó.jpg
- File:Bandeira de Tacaratu.jpg
- File:Brasão de Dormentes.png
- File:Brasão de Afrânio.jpg
- File:Bandeira de Afrânio.jpg
- File:Bandeira Carnaubeira da Penha.png
- File:Brasão oficial de Vitória de Santo Antão.jpg
- File:Bandeira de Ipojuca.jpg
- File:Bandeira Cabrobó.jpg
- File:Brasão Cabrobó.png
Gunnex (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#France. JuTa 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a panorama, not a sculpture, not a building? --Jesmar discussion (fr) / discuss (en) 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Legally, it is a sculpture and therefore protected by copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Google Docs is not open source, therefore the screenshot can't be licensed under an open source license. 83.77.56.181 20:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- {{Free screenshot}} is obviously wrong here, but it might qualify for something like {{PD-ineligible}}. --El Grafo (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- comment: I'm not sure whether or not it would be eligible for copyright, but I've removed the GNU parameter from the template for the reason cited above. -Pete F (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't think it is eligible for copyright, but I also don;t think it is at all useful -- essentially a blank screen with a standard toolbar. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
However, as Peteforsyth pointed out on my talk page, it is in use on several pages, so my opinion does not count -- policy is to keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the license to {{PD-ineligible}}, which seems more appropriate here. Yann (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Veraltetes und minderwertiges Diagramm. Von mir damals selbst erstellt. Wird nicht mehr benötigt PhiCo (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: We usually keep such things, as they give us information as of a certain point in time. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Veraltetes und minderwertiges Diagramm. Von mir damals selbst erstellt. Wird nicht mehr benötigt PhiCo (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: We usually keep such things, as they give us information as of a certain point in time. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 65.35.4.18 as Speedy (Copyright Conflict for use in the Commons) FASTILY (TALK) 09:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- What conflict? Btw, a copy of this image is in en wiki at File:The Coat of Arms of Sir Robert Bell.JPG --Sreejith K (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jojalozzo as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader is unable to document permission for free us of this image and the source considers it unlikely that such permission was given.|source=http://www.vandaimages.com INeverCry 21:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Appears to be a photo of a stained-glass window several centuries old. How can this violate copyrights? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I may be wrong but I don't think it matters what the subject is, the photo is still someone's work and can be copyrighted. In any case, the source claims a copyright. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on whether it falls under "PD-Art" (as I was assuming...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no expert. I was primarily responding to the uploader's claim that they had permission from the source which I wasn't able to verify. I'll leave the decision up to those who understand these things. It would be great if we could keep the image. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, the original stained glass window appears in grayscale in the top middle panel of this high resolution version of en:File:Beaupre Hall 19230002 copy.jpg. The V and A images site has this cropped colour version: [9] - I searched for "Arms of Beaupre & Meeres". -84user (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep but fix the metadata on the page. Permission doesn't matter, the photograph -- as a faithful reproduction of a 2d work of art -- as I understand it isn't eligible for copyright. -Pete F (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept PD-Art, it is the position of the WMF that there is no copyright in the photograph. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JamesBWatson as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There is no plausible copyright claim. the claim that it is the editor's "own work" is absurd. The shading of the Saraiki Speaking Area may be the editor's own work, but the underlying map is clearly taken from some unspecified published source. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Tahirih_Elias.jpg Tahirih (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion was given. AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Lorileigh 0X files
[edit]- File:Lorileigh 00.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 01.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 02.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 03.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 04.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 05.jpg
- File:Lorileigh 06.jpg
Do we really need a bikini shoot of a 15-year old? If so, then someone please explain why... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
We have the Dutch flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's very blurry. AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Certainly we have no need for a 20x13 image . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not from parties and page3 in BollywoodHungama website. Anything apart from these are in copyfight as per the template Sreejith K (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Filming_of_Rockstar_film.jpg also from BH website, is not from parties and page 3, yet it exits. Please keep it, the image will provide more information about the filming of the film--Pleasant1623 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you are right. I got confused between Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama and Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka. Sorry for the trouble. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom -- Sreejith, iwhen you withdraw your own DR, you can close it yourself. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright-violation from here Soham 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Set images not covered by the usage permission --Denniss (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Romeu wartchow junior (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Camera 192.jpg
- File:Camera 058.jpg
- File:Bernardo niver 4 093.jpg
- File:Bernardo niver 4 096.jpg
- File:Bernardo niver 4 092.jpg
- File:Bernardo niver 4 016.jpg
- File:Amor 257.jpg
- File:Bernardo niver 4 023.jpg
- File:DUMINDO 037.jpg
INeverCry 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete All those photos aren't used for educational purposes. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
- File:CANDYBAGS - NIGHT OUT.jpg
- File:CANDYBAGS - BARCODE.jpg
- File:CANDYBAGS - RAINBOW.jpg
- File:CANDYBAGS - CHECKMATE.jpg
- File:Candybags-logo-nl-smooth.jpg
INeverCry 22:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Picture with a promotional purpose. Out of scope. Badzil (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 22:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Esta imagen está repetida en otra igual de mejor calidad: File:Cinnabar-49059.jpg Raimundo Pastor (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Esta fotografía está repetida en otra de mayor calidad: File:Cinnabar-69330.jpg Raimundo Pastor (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted christmas decoration. Not permanently fixed at this location, thus not eligible for FOP. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Also deleted duplicate File:Weihnachtsmann als Fassadenkletterer.jpg. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ukgegeluk as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation INeverCry 19:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- The crown seems pretty simple and unoriginal. Perhaps this is under COM:TOO? INeverCry 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has also edited w:King Edward Primary School about a school in the United Kingdom, so I would assume that this is a British logo. Certainly more complex than w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is protected by copyright in the United Kingdom because it's so complex. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Pas dans le domaine public, cf. Commons:Bistro#Fichiers mentionnés comme domaine public, quel crédit accorder ? Paralacre (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Pas dans le domaine public, cf. Commons:Bistro#Fichiers mentionnés comme domaine public, quel crédit accorder ? Paralacre (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Marked as copyright violation, it should be discussed first. From my opinion the logo is not elegible for copyright, too simple. Fma12 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Blurry penis/underwear pics. We have some better ones.
- File:Erect circumcised penis.JPG
- File:Mens briefs.JPG
- File:Mens circumcised penis.JPG
- File:Mens tanga.jpg
--Rrburke (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Erect circumcised penis.JPG Delete the other 3. The first is of reasonable quality and is a high resolution photo, and it could be a candidate for cropping, etc. russavia (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks that way in the preview, but viewed at full resolution it turns out to be unsalvageably blurry. I suppose it might be serviceable at lower resolutions, but since there's a huge number of better-quality alternatives, I don't see what it adds to the collection. --Rrburke (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the 2 penis pictures: they're unused new additions to a category that already has better quality images. Also Delete the tanga picture unless the uploader makes it clear the model was at least 18 at the time (a shot of the crotch area might be considered "indecent"). Keep File:Mens briefs.JPG as it's the only picture we seem to have of Lonsdale briefs. --Simonxag (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- What makes a photo of the tanga indecent but not the briefs? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing, the model in the briefs photo is clearly stated to be 18, in the tanga photo only teenage. --Simonxag (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, photos are useful and unique, and of a decent quality for retention. -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral on File:Erect circumcised penis.JPG per Russavia. Delete the other three. All are pictures of something extremely common that Commons has a wealth of superior images of, while these have problems such as blurring, blown highlights, and bad lighting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Nothing worth keeping, lousy quality Denniss (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I, the uploader, request this file should be deleted, as I do not think that a censored artwork should exist in Wikimedia Commons at all. Meow 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - perhaps you could upload an uncensored version then? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It is just a reason. Well, I no longer want this artwork existing in Wikimedia Commons. -- Meow 09:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok then, but shame, I think it's pretty good. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Given that the image is not used anywhere, I see no harm in granting the artist's wish. --Conti|✉ 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is quite a unique image and getting rid of it would leave the Commons without anything at all similar. It is a fantasy scenario and it is user created artwork, (2 things that tend to get called "unencyclopedic"), but it is also a good quality illustration and a good example of the sexual variations that flourish in modern culture. I don't quite get this furry stuff myself but I can see that this is not just somebody's personal fantasy. The image has been here, properly licensed, for over 3 years and the license was irrevocable. If the creator had a good reason for wanting the image deleted, I might agree. But what we have is one of those artistic decisions to destroy old work that you get with painters and writers (there would be no Kafka works to read!!), that the rest of us should always oppose. --Simonxag (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? We have a whole category for pictures like these. --Conti|✉ 18:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are 11 images in total in that category, including this one proposed for deletion and a photo of a car with a "YIFF" numberplate. Far from being all "like this", most are of yiff characters in solitary poses, this is the only image of yiff lesbianism. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- And if we had another "yiff lesbianism" picture available, would your next argument be "Yeah, but only one of them has a cheetah in them"? --Conti|✉ 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how wide the diversity of the yiffing community is? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm just pointing out that the "We need this picture because we have no other that is 100% like it" argument is a very silly one, as it is equal to "Every picture that exists is within scope". If that were a valid argument, legal reasons (and pixel perfect duplicates, I suppose) would be the only reason we would ever delete something. --Conti|✉ 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- My point is that this picture is substantially different from the other 9 in the category. Also this is not a situation, such as we have with healthy caucasian genitals and domestic cats, where we are overwhelmed with images and so need to be quite strict about new uploads. I wonder if this was not a sexuality image what the argument would be? If we had 10 images of some sort of creature and only 2 of them interacting in any way? Would we cheerfully delete 1 of those 2, even though it was of good quality and met all Commons requirements? Q: And if we had another "yiff lesbianism" picture available, would your next argument be "Yeah, but only one of them has a cheetah in them"? A: probably yes !!. --Simonxag (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this was not a sexuality related image, my argument would be the same. I'm honestly baffled how little regard some people on commons seem to have towards the people that create the content that we host. --Conti|✉ 22:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The artist has specifically not given any decent reason for deletion. If this was sensitive and personal it could be dealt with via OTRS. An artists moral rights include the right to not have their work destroyed, not a right to destroy it. --Simonxag (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't give a damn about the artist's reasons when we're having a completely unused picture that has various alternatives. And don't worry, the work will not be destroyed by deleting it here, it will still exist. Just not on commons. --Conti|✉ 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The picture does not have any alternatives, though there are a few more in that style/genre. Would you delete all but a few pictures of a singer holding a microphone? After all if we've got a picture of one singer, why would we need a picture of a different one? I suspect if pictures of singers were deemed sexuality-related that's precisely the sort of argument we would be getting. --Simonxag (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the singer would not be notable in any way, then yes, we would be fine with just a few pictures of random people holding a microphone. If we would have more, that would be better, of course. But would it be worth it going against the wishes of the photographers or the people depicted? Hell no. Again, this has nothing to do with sexuality and all to do with basic human decency. --Conti|✉ 11:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- We do go against the wishes of subjects, with the Wikipedia preferring real shots to the photoshopped images provided by celebrities. We also do very much go against the wishes of photographers when they try to withdraw non-revocable licenses, a situation very similar to the one we have here. No doubt your idea of "basic human decency" would have had you destroying Kafka's writings: I say Max Brod did the right thing. --Simonxag (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how else to say this again to make you understand, so I'll say it in all bold: We do not destroy any work by deleting this image, it will still exist and people will still be able to look at it. All we're doing here is, basically, advertising anyone who reads this to never, ever publish anything under a free license, let alone upload anything to commons. --16:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Deleting a work may well destroy it if is not held elsewhere. I suspect that the artist has decided to destroy the work and is trying to delete all copies. Artists do this sometimes. I thoroughly agree that nobody should publish under a free license or upload to the Commons (which requires a free license) unless they mean it and if they do they must accept the license they have given. --Simonxag (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- And yet we take images from other sites where we know that people did not think that thoroughly about the licensing of their images. Anyhow, in this case the artist clearly objects to the censorship of the image and is not on a general deletion spree of all his artwork (we have more pictures from the same artist, even), and I can assure you that the image still does exist elsewhere, so please do drop the "I'm only here to save art" argument. --Conti|✉ 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Images from other sites do sometimes pose problems that need to be addressed. But the artist themself uploaded this image in this state on this site. The license does not and cannot prohibit any derivatives, but mattbuck has already suggested uploading an uncensored version resulting in a response we can all read and which has prompted my suspicions . --Simonxag (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- And yet we take images from other sites where we know that people did not think that thoroughly about the licensing of their images. Anyhow, in this case the artist clearly objects to the censorship of the image and is not on a general deletion spree of all his artwork (we have more pictures from the same artist, even), and I can assure you that the image still does exist elsewhere, so please do drop the "I'm only here to save art" argument. --Conti|✉ 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Deleting a work may well destroy it if is not held elsewhere. I suspect that the artist has decided to destroy the work and is trying to delete all copies. Artists do this sometimes. I thoroughly agree that nobody should publish under a free license or upload to the Commons (which requires a free license) unless they mean it and if they do they must accept the license they have given. --Simonxag (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure how else to say this again to make you understand, so I'll say it in all bold: We do not destroy any work by deleting this image, it will still exist and people will still be able to look at it. All we're doing here is, basically, advertising anyone who reads this to never, ever publish anything under a free license, let alone upload anything to commons. --16:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- We do go against the wishes of subjects, with the Wikipedia preferring real shots to the photoshopped images provided by celebrities. We also do very much go against the wishes of photographers when they try to withdraw non-revocable licenses, a situation very similar to the one we have here. No doubt your idea of "basic human decency" would have had you destroying Kafka's writings: I say Max Brod did the right thing. --Simonxag (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the singer would not be notable in any way, then yes, we would be fine with just a few pictures of random people holding a microphone. If we would have more, that would be better, of course. But would it be worth it going against the wishes of the photographers or the people depicted? Hell no. Again, this has nothing to do with sexuality and all to do with basic human decency. --Conti|✉ 11:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The picture does not have any alternatives, though there are a few more in that style/genre. Would you delete all but a few pictures of a singer holding a microphone? After all if we've got a picture of one singer, why would we need a picture of a different one? I suspect if pictures of singers were deemed sexuality-related that's precisely the sort of argument we would be getting. --Simonxag (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't give a damn about the artist's reasons when we're having a completely unused picture that has various alternatives. And don't worry, the work will not be destroyed by deleting it here, it will still exist. Just not on commons. --Conti|✉ 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The artist has specifically not given any decent reason for deletion. If this was sensitive and personal it could be dealt with via OTRS. An artists moral rights include the right to not have their work destroyed, not a right to destroy it. --Simonxag (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this was not a sexuality related image, my argument would be the same. I'm honestly baffled how little regard some people on commons seem to have towards the people that create the content that we host. --Conti|✉ 22:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how wide the diversity of the yiffing community is? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- And if we had another "yiff lesbianism" picture available, would your next argument be "Yeah, but only one of them has a cheetah in them"? --Conti|✉ 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are 11 images in total in that category, including this one proposed for deletion and a photo of a car with a "YIFF" numberplate. Far from being all "like this", most are of yiff characters in solitary poses, this is the only image of yiff lesbianism. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with analysis by Simonxag (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on that? Various points have been made on both sides, so it's hard to say which of those you agree with. --Conti|✉ 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. :) Primarily the various points raised in this initial statement. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on that? Various points have been made on both sides, so it's hard to say which of those you agree with. --Conti|✉ 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion for the reason of "uploader request" should only generally be used for files uploaded "recently". Whilst there is no definition of "recently", over 3 years ago would certainly not meet that definition. There is valid permission from the author (not the uploader), the image has been on here for over 3 years, so it is possible that it is in use outside of WMF projects -- being hosted for over 3 years; we do owe it to any potential re-users out there to keep this image. If there are other issues, not raised in this DR which could warrant deletion, then feel free to start a new discussion; until then there is no real reason for this to be deleted. russavia (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deze karakters van manga of anime zijn auteursrechtelijk beschermd. De toestemming van de auteur moet worden verkregen via OTRS.
トトト (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Double - Es gibt das gleiche Fote mit erheblich größerer Auflösung: File:Alte Oper Frankfurt Germany 326-vh.jpg - Als Urheber verfüge ich über das Originalfote und einer Reihe ähnlicher Fotos. Pedelecs (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedily delete this file as a duplicate. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Now a redirect. INeverCry 22:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aureliomoraes30 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, File:Wakemanteclport.jpg with mysterious white border, File:Carlinhos almeida.jpg most likely cropped from unknown source.
Gunnex (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I took the picture from Carlinhos Almeida.
I have two cameras. One better , another weaker.
I used the weaker on File:Carlinhos almeida.jpg.
I´ve cropped the picture from a bigger one, where there are other two people, only to put Carlinhos, the city mayor, on the article. Here is the original picture on my blog http://aureliojornalismo.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/discurso-de-posse-do-prefeito-carlinhos.html
A printscreen of the picture, from where I took for the article, on my PC:
http://i49.tinypic.com/30mmma8.jpg
Im also the author of that Rick Wakeman´s picture. I used another camera.
You can search on youtube my videos "rick wakeman sao paulo", my username on youtube is "aureliosjc". You you check that the videos are at the same angle of that picture, the same place from the audience, where I was on that show
Here is a printscreen of the pictures that I took on that show: http://i45.tinypic.com/28cejy1.jpg DSCN715 is Wakemanteclport.jpg!
Please, do not delete both.
Aureliomoraes30 (talk), 4 January 2013
Kept, convincing exlanations from the uploader - Badseed talk 00:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio; it's a logo that's obviously not the own work of the uploader. There are too many elements here for it to be PD-ineligible. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Absolute nonsense, it's basic geometric shapes and text, too simple for French Law Keep. Fry1989 eh? 19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would restrict your comments to why it should be kept and chop the text before your first comma. Meanwhile, yes, it's a bunch of geometric shapes and text — but there are enough of them in an unusual creative arrangement that it's sufficiently complex. Is someone really likely to produce this image independently? Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not. France has Civil Law, which is very loose on copyright. This is easy enough to be PD in the US which has Common Law which is more strict. If it can be considered PD under US law, then French law is a no-brainer. Fry1989 eh? 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, calling another editor's opinion "absolute nonsense" is singularly unhelpful. -Pete F (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh boo hoo, you can interpret it however you want that doesn't mean that's how I meant it. Fry1989 eh? 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, calling another editor's opinion "absolute nonsense" is singularly unhelpful. -Pete F (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not. France has Civil Law, which is very loose on copyright. This is easy enough to be PD in the US which has Common Law which is more strict. If it can be considered PD under US law, then French law is a no-brainer. Fry1989 eh? 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would restrict your comments to why it should be kept and chop the text before your first comma. Meanwhile, yes, it's a bunch of geometric shapes and text — but there are enough of them in an unusual creative arrangement that it's sufficiently complex. Is someone really likely to produce this image independently? Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This logo is made of simple text with no further ornaments. PD-textlogo. Fma12 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
CoA files from speedy-deletion. Reason was: Not 70 years PMA, see below
RE rillke questions? 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Changing from {{copyvio|Tous droits réservés - Arnaud BUNEL - 1997-2011}} because I don't agree. They all seem to be from before 1500 so the copyright would have expired. Arnaud Bunel's contribution is probably below the threshold of originality.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I do not agree that these files are copyright violations. They are logos of the United States and look sufficiently simple, cf. examples at COM:TOO#United States. However, some can probably be deleted as duplicates.
Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Dupes deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These were originally speedy-nommed because the Flickr license is NC. These are by a NASA employee, so the question is whether or not this negates or trumps the NC on Flickr.
INeverCry 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I uploaded these files on the basis that work by NASA is normally in the public domain and allowed here on Wikimedia. There is nothing to suggest that astronaut Don Pettit shot these pictures for private reasons using his own personal camera. If he intended them to be private holiday snaps he could have created a personal website and posted them there with copyright restrictions. In fact, I doubt his terms of employment at NASA would allow him to make pictures private that were taken from a NASA space station using NASA camera equipment. The pictures were posted at a NASA controlled website, not at Pettit's own website. They have all been assigned official NASA photo identifications (e.g. JSC2012-E-051505, JSC2012-E-051506, and JSC2012-E-051507) and some have been posted at NASA's main website – NASA.gov – where the usual freedom of use applies (picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA's main website. Second picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA. Third picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA). I assume the employee at NASA who created the NASA Flickr account may not have known that he was setting a licence parameter that restricted image usage more than at NASA's main website. If the same pictures at NASA.gov cannot be used from NASA's Flickr account, that is inconsistent and makes no sense. O'Dea (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus to kept. Érico Wouters msg 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Speedy nommed as copyvios by User:Smial, but may be covered by FoP. Discussion seems like a better idea than speedy deletion.
INeverCry 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted the interior kept exterior as FOP. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Original speedy rationale: Unfortunately, this artwork by Miquel Barceló is under copyright--User:LPLT (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My pictures are the 4 first ones listed above. I would however demand that the same deletion rules apply to the following files, which don't even mention the artist's name. The US Mission should not be above rules that apply to others.
Thank you for your patience and your understanding --BiiJii (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
--BiiJii (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio logos by User:Ostiamare. Most of these look too simple to be copyrighted, but I'd like more opinions.
INeverCry 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Previously tagged as Copyvio by Ellin Beltz: © 2008–2015 Astronomical Institute of the Charles University, Josef Ďurech, Vojtěch Sidorin
Alan (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: CC BY 4.0. Alan (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by PlanespotterA320 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cropping out artistic parts of postal covers and stamps is strictly prohibited by PD-RU-exempt (read the footnotes about cropping). These artistic renderings by themselves are protected by copyright until expiration, and none are old enough to have expired copyright yet. Until such time, the artists of these works, like Pyotr Bendel and Anatoly Kalashnikov, retain the rights to these works.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These three stamps were sent to copyvio, but I think they need to be discussed, because the argument presented is a little bit above the quick decision needed for CopyVio.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files were initially tagged by Matthias Winkelmann as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5}}{{SD|reason=No information is given regarding consent, and the tone of the description and the inclusion of "ex-girlfriend" in the filename raise the possibility of this being intentional harassment. Plus, it's pornographic and low-quality. User has about 80+ similar photos. The uploader (@Ulflarsen: ) asserts the following: "I put this picture up for deletion, to stop a speedy deletion. The picture is posted with the full consent of my ex-girlfriend, she know of it and is still doing amateur pornograpy with me now and then. If this picture (and my 90+ similar pictures) shall be deleted, then there are some tens of thousands of others that also should be removed, and Wikimedians would have to ask what other content that may be problematic, perhaps pictures of war?“
FredWalsh (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary issue of this DR seems to be consent of the other partners, rather than scope or other topical reasons. I have kept those files for which OTRS consent has been received, and deleted one for which it cannot be obtained. If there has legitmate scope or other topical concerns, they can be addressed in a separate DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by Yinweiaiqing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: videos of performances captured by audience. missing permission from performers. They've sat in CAT:COPYVIO for a few days; converting to DR.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. --Minoraxtalk 04:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Appear to be from 1910s/1020s-era, likely a PD original (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghidul Constantei si Tekirghiol.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:CityStudyCasinoArchive.jpg for evience of this timeframe and porential original being PD).
DMacks (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. While the text of the name list is not eligible for copyright, the photograph of the list probably is (barely). --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations[edit]Converting these to DR since they've sat in the copyvio queue for a while. Gleb Leo tagged these as copyvio as apparently containing work by author not covered under the existing license template.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination, no objection nor counterargument presented. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploads by User:Myrrine[edit]Source site: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." According to the uploader, he/she has the permission to upload the files under the provided license. User_talk:Myrrine#Non-commercial_use_is_not_allowed_on_Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Polarlys (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![87 File:"EL ANDINO".JPG](#File:"EL_ANDINO".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
![23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/04#c-Cecil-2013-01-04T23:13:00.000Z-File:"EL_ANDINO".JPG){kind=link}
![00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/04#c-INeverCry-2013-01-11T00:50:00.000Z-File:"EL_ANDINO".JPG){kind=link}
_o_Il_Porto_di_Savona_da_Miramare.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.visnjagora.si/slike_rez/header_01.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}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]Speedy tagged by IP user. Wait: "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." is arguably a free license (although it does not expressly permit derivative works), and I will reach out to the named contact for clarification and to see if consent can be sent to COM:VRT.
- File:Rudolph Giuliani booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Scott Hall booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:David Shafer booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:John Eastman booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Sidney Powell booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Mark Meadows booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Ray Smith booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Kenneth Chesebro booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Jenna Ellis booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Cathleen Latham booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Floyd Harrison booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that File:Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png should be restored if VRT permission is granted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- These should be deleted, it doesn't seem like I'm making progress with the contact person, unfortunately. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Mug Shot.webp. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]No permission and no evidence of a free license.
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4784-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231357-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID5011-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231466-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231077-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231370-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID11744-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231354-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4819-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID9495-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231369-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231102-av.jpg
Yann (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)