Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_large_crescent.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope as simple text. Fæ (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Lacks of project scope --cyrfaw (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete non-useable image --cyrfaw (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, Flickrreview missing: Uploaded in 2010, linked to a Flickr-account (no direct Flickr-source available) with uploads only starting in 2012. Hi res image may be found via (example) http://www.culturamix.com/cultura/arte/grafite-de-rua (© 2009 - 2013 Cultura Mix. Todos os direitos reservados.) = http://www.culturamix.com/wp-content/gallery/grafite-de-rua-08-10-09/grafite-de-rua-15.jpg (last modified: 2009). Gunnex (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Official flag/logo of Clube Naval de Lisboa, no evidence of permission GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Official logo of GYTE Rowing Logo, no evidence of permission GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A photo of a poster. Poster is by government of Queensland Australia and will be copyright by them. No suggestion of permission from poster's copyright holder. No FOP for posters in Australia. Simonxag (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't find information on copyright on the site of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services. Therefore I contacted them via contact form on their site. I cannot say when they will respond.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I got information from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services. They say "that the image of the sign is best to be removed. It contains out-of-date penalties."--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever that is, it isn't permission to freely license copyright material. So whether or not they are the copyright owner, we do not have permission from the copyright owner of the poster for its use. --Simonxag (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I got information from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services. They say "that the image of the sign is best to be removed. It contains out-of-date penalties."--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
n0 encontre nada 187.176.85.34 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: No reason for delete. Érico Wouters msg 00:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
by request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziko (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Next time please user {{Speedy}} instead --cyrfaw (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Beschreibung fehlt, kein interessantes Foto. Sreejith K (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Its from Dungeon Defenders, just so you know. --89.249.2.53 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Content from commercial video game --moogsi(blah) 16:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Video game web site lists "©all rights reserved" at the bottom of their web site, unlikely this image is available under a free license. -Pete F (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks corrupted. Sreejith K (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is an XCF file. Rendering support is very, let's say, “basic”. -- Rillke(q?) 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I have undeleted this file as per Rillke and the the file description. Perhaps we will get better support for XCF in the future. russavia (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This .svg version is distorted. Please use the .png version in its place. Sreejith K (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
(1) Copyright problems: It is apparently a modern drawing, and may meet Commons:Threshold of originality. (2) COM:SCOPE problems: It appears to be a low-quality file unlikely to have a future use. Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per my own nomination. 2 reasons, either of which result in deletion: (1) This is a Venezuelan logo that is new enough that would be copyrighted as long as it meets the Commons:Threshold of originality. If its simplicity were obvious, it could stay. But since the simplicity seems marginal, it should be deleted in the spirit of the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. (2) It is not a file in use; and its only forseeable use would be in the article es:Arturo's, but that article has been deleted repeatedly, and there is no evidence that the company is notable outside of Spanish-speaking country. --Closeapple (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Photo has copyright problems. --cyrfaw (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
redundant experimental version · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
redundant draft version · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that this was taken in the UK, and I don't know where it was first published, so I can't be sure that PD-Australia applies. 99of9 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a photo, so {{PD-AR-Photo}} does not apply. However, I would suggest to keep it under {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} if nobody objects. ALE! ¿…? 08:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete From 1948, so even if {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} applies, it's still {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Migration notes: Lacking evidence that PD-AR-Anonymous applies, this will not be moved to Wikilivres. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded in 08.2009, might be a derivated work of previously published http://cartunistasolda.com.br/2009/03/31/da-serie-o-que-faltou-em-melhores-defeitos-piores-qualidades-2/ (03.2009) = http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tW83KoQCqyE/SdIirb-Pw-I/AAAAAAABYH4/LMQsdxctWWU/s1600-h/MarcosPrado.jpg, which itself seems to be a scan of unknown source. Gunnex (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Sourced with http://wiki.cancaonova.com/index.php/Arquivo:Dom-Antonio-Carlos-Altieri.jpg (from http://wiki.cancaonova.com/index.php/Bispo_Dom_Antonio_Carlos_Altieri), image uploaded at this wiki under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 in 29.04.2009, but previously published via http://www.flickr.com/photos/webtvcn/3471292045/ (uploaded 24.04.2009, All rights reserved) Gunnex (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no flickr account for Masatake Shimabukuro on flickr Leoboudv (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. This is my misupload.this is my picture. so..what can I do?--Nissy-KITAQ (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: For the source, remove the flickr comment and type {{Own}} and for the author, type, "me" instead of Masatake Shimabukuro. For the license, change it to " self|cc-by-sa-2.0 " instead of cc-by-sa-2.0. Hopefully, it will be OK. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment: Maybe you can do the same here too: File:Halekulani pool.JPG --Leoboudv (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK,I will do that. Thank you for your comment.--Nissy-KITAQ (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep: The uploader has no history of copyright violations. I believe we can trust that this is own work by him. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
While the copyright of the depicted coin has certainly expired, this appears to be a recent photograph (or rather two photographs combined) of the coin. As noted in the introduction to Commons:Currency, a license from the photographer is required to host this on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work by the uploader: low resolution, missing EXIF, image is available on several external websites. A.Savin 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe unfree, found often in the web, here in bigger resolution with a copyright notice on site: http://www.gdl.si/reference Funfood ␌ 10:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood the clear permission of the person SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
zero evidence of permission/appropriate license, zero sourcing The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Update -- This turns out to be a cropped version of the subject's official image on Vimeo [1], must be presumed nonfree unless proved otherwise, and should be removed immediately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A PUF. The uploaders have a physical copy of the file and are clearly not well versed with the copyright laws. Since the date mentioned is 1973, it is not PD-India either. Lovy Singhal (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Verkeerde versie/wrong version --Bakel123 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non free reproductions Lymantria (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlike other order, Grand Order of Mugunghwa's Ribbon does not exist from the beginning. (link) - Lawinc82 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
uncropped version of image includes "COPYRIGHT NO. 2577" at the bottom; unless UK copyright on this image has expired, it's evidently a copyvio. DS (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The framed photograph that is central to this is not de minimis. We have no permission to use it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader previously claimed at the now deleted en:File:Vygon-buidling.jpg that the image was non-free and belonged to "Vygon (UK) Ltd http://www.vygon.co.uk". VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
While the Military Times claims that the photo is from the Army, the EXIF data clearly claims that the photo is instead from "AP Photo/CBS6 WRGB Albany". Given the staging, the original certainly may be an official Army photo, but that's by no means the only situation in which members are photographed in front of a flag. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as likely copyright violation, in absence of information about the original photo's origin. -Pete F (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. Sreejith K (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
old picture ThrillfxRide (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see you are the original uploader. Since there is no obvious educational value to the picture, I think it is reasonable to Delete based on your expressed wish. -Pete F (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken from cited ref (copied from website) but no evidence of permission (uploader doesn't seem to match website-owner?) Coordinate or structure data seems to be published, so could be replaced by a freely-licensed equivalent created using that. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Probably This image was taken in 1924. But this is neither an official photograph nor a photograph for newspapers, but a family photograph. It's difficult for me to believe that this photo was published before 1942. I didn't make my own decision and consulted Rapsar. At least {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is not valid. Takabeg (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Konstanty Borzęcki (Mustafa Djelaleddin Pasha) died in 1876. Although I cannot prove the first publication date, it's clear that this photo was taken in 19th century. Takabeg (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It looks as if the man could easily be in his 50s, so the photo may have been taken at the end of his life. Still, even if the photo was taken in the 1870s, it is very likely that the photographer died before 1942. Presumably Keep. The current licence claim is of course wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Replaceable by File:Willstatter tropinone synthesis.png that has a more appropriate file type. Leyo 15:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind as long as you switch the picture in the tropinone article. Also how about you change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing so it doesn't say "then save it as a TIFF file, to be read by an image editor such as The Gimp or Irfan View (see below for details)." which is obviously sending mixed messages to new editors? Chemdraw can easily save as png too. J1812 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I changed it as suggested. Personally, I save ChemDraw images as EPS and then convert them to SVG using Scribus. --Leyo 18:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- SVG spazzes out in this case... Thanks for changing the guide. J1812 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of copies with bigger resolution example this Motopark (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tentative Delete. Existence of higher resolution photos is not relevant, if they are not freely licensed. However I am not sure this promotional product photo has a place in Commons' educational mission. -Pete F (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio from Universal Music - see http://www.dileva.org/bilder/ which clearly states © Universal Music 2012 Tournesol (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This file has technical problems -- displays differently at each resolution. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Despite claim, image is adapted from a copyrighted source. While the website linked has a "public domain" CC tag on it, the original source is visible at http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR12.pdf, see Appendix D, which is a copyrighted publication of the NCAA, the copyright notice is displayed on the 5th page of the document. Jayron32 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it is copyrighted, by all means delete it. I thought it was public domain because of the CC tag. Toa Nidhiki05 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear source. The claim of the file being in public domain is not supported by evidence. Sreejith K (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Better named identical image at File:BSicon uABZ+4.svg; usage moved there on (now only used in a few non-article pages where it is supposed to redlink once deleted, and in unmantained or blocked user sandboxes). -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Attribution of own work is highly doubtful. Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Watermarked Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
attribution of own work is highly doubtful Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia, and most likely copyvio anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear rights on used photographs, small and unreadable text also. Funfood ␌ 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Logo is protected by copyright even if you draw it yourself. Onderwijsgek (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Photo from Facebook. Permission for publishing from author is missing. License is also missing. Onderwijsgek (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The image of the badge possibly is not free Ralgistalk 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The uploader has pointed me by email that he is the creator of the image in the badge, and that he even has the sources for the image. --Ralgistalk 04:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Card design is possibly non free Ralgistalk 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for election posters in Japan. Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused, recently created, serves no purpose. Merely a cropped version of en:File:Cleveleys.jpg on enwiki. File:Victoria Road West, Cleveleys - DSC06528.JPG serves the same function far better, rendering this image superfluous. The Anome (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
por que no lo quiero 187.206.50.242 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Rationale? Érico Wouters msg 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture, built after World War II; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted work; no freedom of panorama in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep it is a replica of the Borovnica viaduct built in 1856. --Sporti (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is more a derived work than a replica. In my opinion, these [2][3] two files depict an inexact replica model. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borovnica_viaduct_model.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borovnica_viaduct-model.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: The model, according to copyright law, is a sculpture. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. We do not know when the sculptor died. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No com:fop#France for architectural works. The bridge's pylon is the main subject. 67.87.46.39 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep especially this part of the bridge seems not to be copyrightable - a simple steel structure with metal ropes. Keep this one but maybe delete full views of the bridge. --High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The shape of the pylon is unique to this specific bridge. If you look at a different bridge, the pylon is shaped differently. 67.87.46.39 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unique? This metal pylon is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain - I think. --High Contrast (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I do not know whether bridges have a copyright in France -- they do not in the USA -- but this is too simple and too utilitarian. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_large_crescent.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_large_crescent.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No use, terrible quality, SVGs exist. Fry1989 eh? 05:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
_large_crescent.svg){kind=link}
- Delete Yeah.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Neither bad quality nor a valid reason. The crescent is larger then the other better? one. --Ras67 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not bad quality??? What do you call the crescent and star that are all choppy? Fry1989 eh? 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what, it is not geometrically perfect, that's no reason for deletion. It's a other version with large crescent and star. --Ras67 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Also is the fact it has no use. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- If utilization should be a valid deletion criterion, we would have to kill 'millions' of pictures. --Ras67 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. It's not one thing that makes this a delete, it's the combination of factors. Low quality, no use, no future forseable use, other SVGs which don't have distorted crescents and stars, all those factors together. Fry1989 eh? 06:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be no valid reason. For example this request was rejected. Kind regards. --Ras67 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so because one of your DRs was denied, you're gonna fight mine? Is that how it is? Fry1989 eh? 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I "fight" you if i thought i defend an official Wiki guideline. --Ras67 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so because one of your DRs was denied, you're gonna fight mine? Is that how it is? Fry1989 eh? 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- If utilization should be a valid deletion criterion, we would have to kill 'millions' of pictures. --Ras67 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Also is the fact it has no use. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what, it is not geometrically perfect, that's no reason for deletion. It's a other version with large crescent and star. --Ras67 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not bad quality??? What do you call the crescent and star that are all choppy? Fry1989 eh? 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Ras67, could you please state what you believe is the benefit of keeping this file on Commons? -Pete F (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see no benefit for Commons, but in my interpretation of Deletion policy and Commons talk:Superseded images policy i don't see a deletion reason. If the enlarged crescent and star should be not "official" so it can certainly be deleted. --Ras67 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I had not noticed that the relative size of the objects was different. Without knowing which is correct (or even if there is a canonical/correct version) it seems best to keep both. If the SVG is deemed to be more accurate, I would support deletion -- as there is no reason to keep a file that has no foreseeable benefit! -Pete F (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see no benefit for Commons, but in my interpretation of Deletion policy and Commons talk:Superseded images policy i don't see a deletion reason. If the enlarged crescent and star should be not "official" so it can certainly be deleted. --Ras67 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no reason to keep an image that has a crescent that is not a crescent -- not two perfect intersecting arcs, etc. What use is it when proper ones exist? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
_large_crescent.svg){kind=link}
Built in 1918; unknown death year of the creator (before or after 1945); no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Contains a poem; there's no freedom of panorama in Slovenia (cf. File:Ožbalt-Memorial_plaque.jpg). Eleassar (t/p) 13:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board; no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No information about when this depiction of the coat of arms of Kočevje was made and whether it may still be copyrighted. Eleassar (t/p) 14:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This depiction of the coat of arms of Gottschee is from before 1914, which means it is at least 100 years old. -- PhJ (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright status is unclear, because it is not known whether the author died before 1945 or afterwards. The burden of proof is on the uploader, who should provide a reliable source to establish at least the approximate year of creation and/or the year of the creator's death. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Note two things, please. Individual reaizations of COAs have a copyright, so even if the COA is old, a particular realization may still be in copyright. Also a creation in 1914 proves nothing useful -- someone working in 1914 could easily have lived past 1942. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No information about when this depiction of the coat of arms of Kočevje was made and whether it may still be copyrighted. This representation is definitely not from 1471. Eleassar (t/p) 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep: This representation of the seal (sigillum/Siegel/pečat/žig) is definitely from 1471, copied from the original seal of the city. This original representation of the seal is also used by some Gottscheers organisations, and they are free to do this, as it is from 1471. Sources (in German and Slovene, respectively):
- http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/hleustik/gottschee/archiv/veranstaltungen/kulturwochen/2011/pdf/programmheft_2011.pdf (image page 1 and text in page 5)
- http://www.kocevje.si/grb-zastava ("Sv. Jernej z nožem in knjigo ni upodobljen le v grbu, temveč tudi v sočasno [leta 1471, PhJ] podeljenem mestnem pečatu. Napis na pečatniku se glasi: Sigillum civitatis in Kotschew 1471 (Grb mesta v Kočevju 1471).")
Additionally:
- File:Sigillum Civitatis in Kotschew 1471.png;
- Strong keep: See above, same representation of the seal. -- PhJ (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Gottschee Kocevje Trata Gott Vater im Himmel.jpg
- Strong keep: Seal: see above. Text: Lack of originality. Text itself is older than 100 years. -- PhJ (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
--Eleassar (t/p) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the specific representation that is copyrightable (see COM:Coats of arms). There are many differences between File:Sigillum Civitatis in Kotschew 1471.jpg and http://www.kocevje.si/grb-zastava. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This specific representation of the original seal is from 1471, NOT the present coat of arms of the municipality which was designed in this form after World War II. If you read some sources carefully, you will see. -- PhJ (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok (see [4]).
I withdraw my nomination. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok (see [4]).
- This specific representation of the original seal is from 1471, NOT the present coat of arms of the municipality which was designed in this form after World War II. If you read some sources carefully, you will see. -- PhJ (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the specific representation that is copyrightable (see COM:Coats of arms). There are many differences between File:Sigillum Civitatis in Kotschew 1471.jpg and http://www.kocevje.si/grb-zastava. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.kocevje.si/upload/pic/423_Pecat_Obcine_Kocevje.jpg){kind=link}
Made after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Lack of originality, emblem used on the monument is older than 100 years. The author's intention was neither poetry nor to sell anything. -- PhJ (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's the specific representation that is copyrightable (see COM:Coats of arms). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: THe text, the emblem, and the general shape of the sculpture all have a copyright. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Made after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- WAIT and stop with such stupid proposals. I consider it vandalism to create countless DR and delete stuff that is unproblematic. Lot of damage has already been done. In the worst case it is unclear wheather or not such memorial plates are copyrightable. I bet they can't be - it would be a total absurd:
- it would be impossible to control copyright infrigments of a work somewhere in thw woods
- data about the author can not be found
- all those plates follow certain (formal) guidelines so they do not meet anything like the threshold of originality
- it is totaly against common sense to copyright/protect something that is meant to be a memorial, i.e. to spread awareness about a certian event in the history
- I sent a question about this to Slovene office for intelectual property today. Standard reply time is about 10 days. --Miha (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. For all these stupid deletion proposals and deletions executed already, see on my talk page.
- Strong keep: Lack of originality, the author's intention was neither poetry nor to sell anything. -- PhJ (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you consider it vandalism, you should probably report it. If you think unproblematic stuff was deleted, you should request undeletion. As to your scruples, they're mainly wrong:
- This point is often visited and the control may happen when someone publishes an image of the monument.
- These are en:orphan works: though the author is perhaps not known (what research was done anyway), they're still copyrighted
- What formal guidelines? What threshold of originality? You should provide reliable sources for these.
- Common sense that memorials can't be protected doesn't make them free. You should provide a reliable source for this claim.
- Perhaps you're right in this case and the plaque is too generic. Mistakes happen. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you consider it vandalism, you should probably report it. If you think unproblematic stuff was deleted, you should request undeletion. As to your scruples, they're mainly wrong:
- Don't be silly. So File:Vojko's Plaque.JPG; File:Veštrski mlin v Škofji Loki, obeležje.jpg and many others I don't even remember were also mistakes? Just like hayracks? The plaques are all perfectly generic, but let's wait what the responsible office has to say. --Miha (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, these were not mistakes and were reviewed and concluded by an experienced administrator. So you don't be silly. As to the hayracks, the office has simply stated that the concept of hayrack can't be copyrighted, but an individual hayrack (if original) may be copyrighted (like a house in general can't be, but an individual house with original elements can be). --Eleassar (t/p) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - that is accurate with an important addition that only the court is responsible to judge whether an individual hayrack is a copyrightable work as all double hayracks include some of the ornaments (but that is out of the topic) --Miha (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is just plain nonsense. In this case, no image whatsoever from Slovenia or article from the Slovene Wikipedia should be deleted as a copyvio because "only the court is responsible". (vendar je za presojo, kdaj neko delo predstavlja avtorsko delo, pristojno sodišče) --Eleassar (t/p) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a copyvio (obviously stolen text or image taken by another photographer) and highly ambigous case where only an expert can conclude whether an object depicted is copyrightable or not. --Miha (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- If a file is a clear-cut copyvio, we should speedy delete it. If a file is ambiguous (like this one), we should nominate it for deletion. If a significant doubt remains despite the discussion, we should eventually delete it. Per COM:PRP, we only keep files where there is no significant doubt about their freedom. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, del. on DE Nolispanmo 16:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Nolispanmo,
viele Autoren (siehe Google) schreiben nur über den Schuldschungel oder den Schulwirrwarr in Deutschland. Ich habe mir die große Arbeit gemacht und dies in einem Bild dargestellt, denn ein Bild sagt mehr als Tausend Worte.
Das Bild veranschulicht den jetzigen Zustand im Schulwesen und sollte im Interesse der Schüler, StudentenS sowie der Eltern in der Wikimedia verbleiben. Vielleicht hilft das Bild, die große Zahl sowie die negative und kostspielige Wirkung der vielen Schularten zu beseitigen. --Fryderyk1 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This seems like an interesting image. (I do not speak German, but ran the comment above, and the file description, through Google Translate.) In English, the file description says:
The picture shows only a part of the many types of schools in Germany. It is too complicated and expensive education system.
- This may be a worthwhile point, and I agree that "a picture is worth 1000 words." However, if the file is not being used by a Wikimedia project (such as Wikipedia), it seems unlikely to me that it is in the scope of Commons. There are many places on the Internet to express good ideas; not all of them are compatible with the mission of Wikimedia Commons. Unless there is something I have missed, I believe this file should be Delete. -Pete F (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Smaller version of File:Passport of UAE.jpg Capmo (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists, see File:Nederlands verkeersbord A1.svg Fry1989 eh? 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a photo as claimed.
The poster is from the 1940s. Elections were held in 1940, 1944 and 1948, so this was made and published in one of those years. If anonymous, then the copyright expires in Sweden 70 years after publication, but if this was published in 1948, then it is still protected by copyright in Sweden. Additionally, it is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. Stefan4 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see that a user changed the licence to {{PD-simple}}. However, this doesn't look correct, considering that a Sundborn plate is protected by copyright because it is so complex. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting. My impression, however, is that the Sundborn plate is different from the image. It conveys a clear artistic talent. The text of the webpage says that it is "Swedish national romanticism in the form of porcellain," and "in the decor, she has managed to capture the warmth, harmony and the flowers..." The poster, by contrast, is heavily stylized images of people. --Jonund (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. According to the description, the original uploader had scanned from New York Times, November 26, 1926. So {{PD-US}} is not valid. Takabeg (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the file consists nov 1922. There is a possibility that this illustration may be published in november 1922.--Rapsar (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Maybe. But there is no proof. The English version of the memoir of Halide Edib was published in 1926 in New York. Probably the article in New York Times was related with this memoir. Takabeg (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The New York Times did not begin renewing copyrights until 1956, therefore all issues befroe April 1, 1928 are PD -- see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html for this and many many more periodical renewals . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No indication that the creator would have died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Lack of originality, this image is to document names of Gottscheers and their villages. Plaque was made between 1918 and 1928. In February 1928 the use of German and other non-Slavic placenames was forbidden by the government of Yugoslavia, see Feliks J. Bister, Peter Vodopivec (1995): Kulturelle Wechselseitigkeit in Mitteleuropa: deutsche und slowenische Kultur im slowenischen Raum vom Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. -- PhJ (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still no indication that the creator would have died before 1945. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still lack of originality. -- PhJ (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The side at the top with the image is quite original. The sides with daggers too. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Have you ever been to a cemetery? That is how nearly all memorial plates builded in the church walls look like. --Miha (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- <sarcasm>Of course</sarcasm>. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The side at the top with the image is quite original. The sides with daggers too. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still lack of originality. -- PhJ (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still no indication that the creator would have died before 1945. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While the list of names has no copyright, the plaque itself has a number of disticntive features, include the bas relief at the top, the cross/daggers, etc. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong map, Iran is not in the list of the source, but wrongly added in the map.
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure we want this photoshopped image. If we do, then we need permission, or at least proper attribution for the two sources named. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 05:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Richiedo la cancellazione dell'immagine Camera_Oscura.jpg poiché ne ho fatto una migliore che caricherò a breve. Federico Guillin (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Uploader requests to delete their own unused image, and they have made a better one: File:Cam_Oscura.jpg. --moogsi·(blah) 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- (Traduzione automatica): fare clic "Carica una nuova versione di questo file" nella sezione "Cronologia del file" per caricare alla stessa pagina --moogsi·(blah) 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Dutch photos taken after 1925. These are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. All files on Commons have to be free in the United States.
- File:Javatraat-Bankastraat Indischebuurt Zwolle 1928.png
- File:Rembrandtlaan Zwolle 1930.png
- File:Meidoornstraat Zwolle 1935.png
Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous.C)
This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity. Important: Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.Nummer 12 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2013 (UT
- Indeed, the template applies to the European Union, but you also have to add a tag which tells why it applies to the United States. You haven't done that. See COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you think i gonna nominate the image? You can add the good template, could you tell me what template? Nummer 12 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no template which can be added because the images are protected by copyright in the United States. No Dutch photos taken in 1926 or later can be uploaded to Commons unless you have permission from the photographer because those photos are protected by copyright in the United States. These photos can't be uploaded to Commons until 95 years after they were first published. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- YOu must read better my friend, the photographer is not known as the template says! Nummer 12 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no template which can be added because the images are protected by copyright in the United States. No Dutch photos taken in 1926 or later can be uploaded to Commons unless you have permission from the photographer because those photos are protected by copyright in the United States. These photos can't be uploaded to Commons until 95 years after they were first published. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you think i gonna nominate the image? You can add the good template, could you tell me what template? Nummer 12 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, the template applies to the European Union, but you also have to add a tag which tells why it applies to the United States. You haven't done that. See COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted the 1928 photograph since it's 2024 now. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Small resolution. Only one has EXIF (saying all rights reserved by Peter HOLCZER). I checked a few of the uploader's images and tagged those with {{Copyvio}}. These ones are probably also copyright violations.
- File:Colin Lloyd.png
- File:Co Stompé.jpg
- File:Justin Pipe.jpg
- File:Michael Rosenauer.jpg
- File:Darter Jerry Hendriks.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who says he is not Peter H.? Nummer 12 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- For example, the file appeared here before it was uploaded to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Metalpoles (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files are low res, lack metadata and are of a quality which makes me suspect they are vidcaps. They apparently show Miss Risa Yoshiki, a Japanese celebrity, and it seems dubious that the uploader is copyright holder.
- File:Japanese idol - Miss Risa Yoshiki 09.jpg
- File:Japanese idol - Miss Risa Yoshiki 06.jpg
- File:Japanese idol - Miss Risa Yoshiki 01.jpg
- File:Japanese idol - Miss Risa Yoshiki 02.jpg
- File:Japanese idol - Miss Risa Yoshiki 03.jpg
-mattbuck (Talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The images appear to be video screenshots.
Jespinos (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Photos uploaded by AmelFkNp
[edit]
All other photos uploaded by this user at the same time were copyvios uploded under false self made claim. These two don't have EXIF so probably comes from some facebook profiles. --Oleola (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Most likely the images are not own work.
- File:Lafoole.jpg
- File:Xusen shire jaamac.jpg
- File:Xaawo kiin.jpg
- File:Shamsa foot.jpg
- File:Maalmo.jpg
- File:Saado ali.jpg
- File:Nimco dareen.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palace in via Piagentina
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Leonardo Savioli (died 11 May 1982) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 01.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 02.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 04.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 05.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 06.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 07.JPG
- File:Edificio di via piagentina 08.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casa-Studio Savioli (Florence)
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Leonardo Savioli (died 11 May 1982) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Villa Bayon (Florence)
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Leonardo Savioli (died 11 May 1982) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Leonardo Savioli (died 11 May 1982) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Ponte Giovanni da Verrazzano 01.JPG
- File:Ponte Giovanni da Verrazzano 02.JPG
- File:Ponte Giovanni da Verrazzano 03.JPG
- File:Ponte Giovanni da Verrazzano.JPG
Raoli ✉ (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks as if it might have been taken from a newspaper, so the licence might be wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Licence is the same licence given by the original uploader when the image was uploaded in 2006 on the English Wikipedia here. Osarius (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but that licence statement is likely wrong. If you look at the uploader's talk page at English Wikipedia, you see that the uploader has got all of his other uploads deleted because of copyright reasons. en:Special:ListFiles/Sunil ns nair tells that all of his files have been either deleted or overwritten. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems to be a 2005 photo from a print publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Ts12rAc (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete - F10 and/or G10. Used on userpage of a user who registered to make personal promotion. Is this also a "deleted file re-uploaded" case? If not, this time he took even Gandhi behind to save his OoS pic, but IMHO in vain. --E4024 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Again... Osarius (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I should note that these are five different images that have had this name and been deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted photos all taken from the internet; they are not the uploader's "own work." See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images.
- File:Hghhg.jpg
- File:Augusto14.jpg
- File:Donde-esta-elisa-plagio.png
- File:Hgjgj.jpg
- File:Catalina-guerra.jpg
- File:Alonsquinteros.jpg
- File:Lorena bosh 2.jpg
- File:Actores blanca-lewin.jpg
- File:F722970 330hector.jpg
- File:Jorge-alberti-520x780.jpg
- File:Terestrr.jpg
- File:CRUZ 09280006.jpg
- File:Gonzalo justiniano.jpg
- File:JUANFALCON.jpg
- File:Nicolassa.jpg
- File:B-happy.jpg
- File:Manuelamar.jpg
- File:MacarenaTkk.jpg
- File:Xslapeor.jpg
- File:Normal con alas.jpg
- File:Belensfff.jpg
- File:Felipbb.jpg
- File:Celinre.jpg
- File:Tamiac.jpg
- File:Lucianaech.jpg
- File:CelineR.jpg
- File:Brick2005.jpg
- File:Maria-elena-300x300.jpg
Senator2029 07:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Verkeerde versie/wrong version --Bakel123 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Slovenia in World War I
[edit]No reliable source indicating that the work was originally published anonymously more than 70 years ago or that the creator had died before 1945.
- File:2.november.jpg
- File:Alfred Lavric.jpg
- File:Avstrijska opazovalnica pri Vrtojbi.jpg
- File:Avstro-ogrski spomenik-kažipot med Lokvico in Kostanjevico.jpg
- File:Barake na Malem Palu.jpg
- File:Intendantski vod v Mariboru 1914 (2).jpg
- File:Intendantski vod v Mariboru 1914.jpg
- File:Italijanske ujetnike vodijo skozi Šempeter.jpg
- File:Klavnica za oskrbo vojske v neposrednem zaledju fronte.jpg
- File:Kranjski 7. lovski bataljon.jpg
- File:Miniranje renškega zvonika 1916.jpg
- File:Možnar s katerim so iz okolice Renč obstreljevali italijanske položaje na bližnji fronti.jpg
- File:Notranjost poškodovane renške cerkve.jpg
- File:Notranjost renške cerkve po rušenju zvonika 1916.jpg
- File:Obisk zdravniške delegacije pri lokalni vojaški enoti v Renčah.jpg
- File:Ostanek porušenega zvonika renške cerkve.jpg
- File:Pogled na poškodovana poslopja v centru Renč med prvo svetovno vojno.jpg
- File:Pogled na poškodovana poslopja v Renčah med prvo svetovno vojno.jpg
- File:Pogled na Renče iz zvonika proti severu.jpg
- File:Položaji na Malem Palu.jpg
- File:Porušena hiša v Ozrenju.jpg
- File:Razrušen šempetrski trg.jpg
- File:Rušenje opekarniškega dimnika v bližini Renč med prvo svetovno vojn.jpg
- File:Slovene soldiers in Gorica during WWI.jpg
- File:Spomenik iz prve svetovne vojne na pokopališču v Grgarju (2).jpg
- File:Srecko Puncer.jpg
- File:V strelskem jarku na frontni črti na krasu pri kraju Šmihel.jpg
- File:Visoki obisk na fronti pri Lokvici na krasu.jpg
- File:Vojaško taborišče Lager Segeti.jpg
- File:Útok rakouské pěchoty na Soči.gif
- File:Čiščenje kotlov v reki Vipavi med prvo svetovno vojno.jpg
- File:Šempetrci se vračajo iz ujetništva.jpg
- File:Ženske, otroci in avstro-ogrski vojaki v Biljah.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Europeana photos are probably PD-old, but at least CC-by-sa 3.0[5]. --Sporti (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a reliable source in regard to the copyrights. They don't seem to have any mechanism in place to verify licenses. As the difference between 1914 and 1945 is less than 30 years, any PD-old claim needs a verifiable reference. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- How is that different from flickr licences, only here all uploaded photos are CC-by-sa 3.0? --Sporti (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- One expects images to be own work on flickr, but this is not always the case. See Commons:License laundering. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion on this is totally irrelevant here, if it says CC-by-sa 3.0 on terms of usage. And this is a very sloppy delition request (like many you made), as many files here are different cases. --Sporti (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Per the cited page: "If license laundering is suspected, even if the source user is claiming to be the copyright owner, the file should be nominated for deletion." This is the case here. The request is not sloppy, even if these are different cases. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is sloppy, because you didn't even check all the images (for example Spomenik iz prve svetovne vojne na pokopališču v Grgarju (2).jpg). And we don't fight the license laundering by deleting all the images from Flickr, so why should we here? You need to have a reason to suspected license laundering, general copyright paranoia doesn't count--Sporti (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't sloppy, because the monument image has been included on purpose: it is an artistic text. On Flickr, one generally assumes own work. Here, when it is not own work, standards differ. With third-party images, one must provide a source that proves the image is free. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Already did: "This document contains the terms applicable to users who contribute content and metadata to the Europeana.eu website of the Europeana Foundation. The user must be aware that the Europeana Foundation strives to make all content and metadata available for reuse with a minimum of restrictions. As part of this policy, the Europeana Terms for User Contributions establish that all content that is contributed to Europeana by its users will be made available on Europeana.eu under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. This means that, when a user posts content on the Europeana.eu website, he irrevocably grants third parties the right to freely use that content, as long as they attribute the work to the author and share alterations of that content under the same conditions."[6]. --Sporti (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're running in circles. You should provide evidence for the claim that all users who contribute images to it respect the copyrights or that there is some process in place for reviewing the copyright status. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Sporti. Europeana is a serious proffesional organisation (unlike Flickr), and there are no doubt they respect copyright.
Moreover, there is also no source that the work was not published anonymously. Common sense also tells us that anyone who might have taken photos of World War I is now long dead. --Miha (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there evidently is doubt and you should provide evidence for the claim that all users who contribute images to it respect copyright. As far as I can see, they don't have any copyright verifying procedure in place. The page states: "You [the uploader] guarantee that ... the digital material that you submit is not copyright protected." Common sense tells us that someone who was alive in 1914-1918 could easily be alive in 1945, in which case the copyright still applies. Therefore, significant doubt exists. The burden of proof is on the uploader. Whether the creator is dead or not is irrelevant (see COM:PRP). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- You could at least try to trust to official institutions - Europeana is multi-lingual online collection of millions of digitized items from European museums, libraries, archives and multi-media collections, with procedures for content ... Its members are the presidents and chairs of European associations for cultural heritage and information associations. --Miha (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. However, as clearly written in the image tag and on the cited page, this part of Europeana is "user generated content", so we must be prudent here. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Well the user generated content are AFAIK just image annotations. Images are contributed by museums themselves. --Miha (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah.. This page is pretty specific about who contributes images. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep The photos were uploaded one by one and should be also treated individually. It is unacceptable to discuss the category as a whole. --Hladnikm (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- It may be unacceptable to you. However, per Commons:Deletion policy, it is completely ok to "nominate multiple items for deletion for the same reason," and it links to the page where it is described how to do this. The reason is the same for all these files. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Without knowing when the author died, or having proof that they were originally published anonymously ("unknown" is our lack of knowledge, not proof), we cannot keep these. Contrary to one of the comments here a 1914 image could easlly have been taken by a person who lived until 1943. The CC license is irrelevant and unneeded -- either they are PD-old and do not need a CC license, or they are not and the CC license proves nothing because obviously they were not first published under a CC license (which dates from 2002). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kočevje
[edit]Built in the 1930s; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia. No evidence that the architect had died before 1945.
Eleassar (t/p) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: No copyright infringement. Stop these stupid deletion proposals. -- PhJ (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bosco Verticale
[edit]These images depict a building in Milan (it:Bosco verticale) by architect it:Stefano Boeri who is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bosco Verticale
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. At least one architect of the Bosco Verticale, en:Stefano Boeri, is still living. Won't be PD in Italy for at least 70 years.
- File:Alloggiamento Piante Bosco Verticale II.jpg
- File:Balconi Bosco Verticale.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (17830612035).jpg
- File:Bosco verticale 2, milan, italy.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale 2014 1.JPG
- File:Bosco Verticale Rendering.jpg
- File:Bosco verticale, Milan, Italy (9471373927).jpg
- File:Bosco verticale, milan, italy.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale, Milano.jpg
- File:Bosco verticale.jpg
- File:Boscoverticale.JPG
- File:Boscoverticalemilan.JPG
- File:Boscoverticalemilano.JPG
- File:ProgettoPortaNuova-Milano-27giu2012-2.jpg
- File:ProgettoPortaNuova-Milano-27giu2012-20.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano1.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano2.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano3.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano4.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano5.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano6.jpg
- File:Vertical garden Milano7.jpg
- File:Verticalforest.JPG
- File:Verticalforestmilan.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~ Rob13Talk 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bosco Verticale
[edit]The building was completed in 2014, by architect Stefano Boeri (1956–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy, therefore permission from him is required.
- File:Italy - Milan (17163817478).jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (159667427).jpeg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 01.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 02.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 03.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 04.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 05.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale (2018) 06.jpg
- File:Bosco verticale 2.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale Milano.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale 米蘭樹塔 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale.jpg
- File:Bosco verticale.jpg
- File:New building in Milan.jpg
- File:Vertical forest .jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bosco Verticale
[edit]There is no complete freedom of panorama for free uses of architecture or public art in Italy. IMO the building is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. The author, w:en:Stefano Boeri, is still alive unfortunately.
- File:Bosco Verticale (205282347).jpeg
- File:Milan Duomo (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 03.jpg
- File:VERTICAL FOREST.jpg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bosco Verticale
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Stefano Boeri, seems to still be alive. So these images are copyrighted until an undernimmed date.
- File:Milano 11-2011 - panoramio.jpg
- File:9019 ITA Milan Bosco Verticale Torre unicredit seen from Via Gaetano de Castillo small planet.jpg
- File:Bosco verticale a distanza.jpg
- File:Bosco Verticale.jpg
- File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg
- File:Irrigazione Bosco Verticale.jpg
- File:Milano 600 03.jpg
- File:Porta Nuova WIP.jpg
- File:Stefano Boeri Architetti - Bosco Verticale - Drawings 05.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg per de minimis.--Friniate (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- You think that's just an image of the trees and the buildings have nothing to do with it? Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's an image of the landscape, besides the trees there are other 2 skyscrapers clearly more visible than the copyrighted building. Friniate (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The building on the other side of the image is also copyrighted. If not also the building in the middle. So it's not like it matters since the image is a copyright violation either way. Or are you going to argue the only thing that matters are the dark, blurry trees in the foreground? Or maybe the photographer was just taking a photograph of the street lamp that's barely even part of it to begin with? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's an image of the landscape, besides the trees there are other 2 skyscrapers clearly more visible than the copyrighted building. Friniate (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All, including File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg,which is not a trivial size, therefore not de minimis COM:DM. In addition, the other two buildings may also be copyrighted and should be deleted per COM:PCP Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok to delete others, but File:Milano 11-2011 - panoramio.jpg, File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg, File:Porta Nuova WIP.jpg it's a panoramic photo who don't have the boeri's building or other building to exclusive and central subject. The precautionary principle is fine but it's a bit exaggerated; which it is a freedom paranorma of a street and a night-evening a public park, which are in the background in the background and also partially covered by plants and in a corner: it may be a "sly artifice" of the photographer, but according to Italian jurisprudence they are potentially acceptable. Therefore these could be there, or in any case they should be explored in depth with another discussion-procedure, because if for some they are not consistent with the guidelines it is a "photofinish" issue. 5.90.136.54 12:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just another straight building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from the photographer. Stefan4 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tour CMA-CGM
[edit]These images show a building in France (w:CMA CGM Tower) from 2011. The architect, w:Zaha Hadid, is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Paglia Orba devant la tour CGM-CMA.JPG
- File:PiedCMACGM.jpg
- File:Tour CMA CGM (rognée).jpg
- File:Tour CMA CGM de Marseille.jpg
- File:Tour CMA CGM Juin 2010 800x600.JPG
- File:Tour CMA-CGM.jpg
- File:TourCMACGMBAS2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tour CMA-CGM
[edit]This picture depicts a monument designed by Zaha Hadid (1950-2016), an architect who died less than 70 years ago. This work of art is copyrighted and, as there is no Freedom of panorama in France, it won't be freely shared before 1st January 2087. For this reason, this picture must be removed from Wikimedia Commons.
- File:CGMTower.jpg
- File:La tour CMA-CGM (Marseille) (7602254176).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (15814275614).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (15814496994).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16249478430).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16249566220).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16251032957).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16251092267).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16435936602).jpg
- File:Marseille - Tour CMA-CGM (16437019095).jpg
- File:MarseilleGratteCielPort.JPG
- File:Tour CGA.jpg
- File:Tour cma cgm 1 credits Exmagina.jpg
- File:Tour cma cgm 2 credits Exmagina.jpg
- File:Tour CMA-CGM et annexe, juin 2009.JPG
- File:Vue de la mer, juin 2009.JPG
_(7602254176).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}
Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, je comprends, il s'agit de lieux que l'on ne peut pas photographier je suppose, ok pour les enlever--Sophiedidacressources (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Moved from talk page by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC), in accordance with Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11#Disabling talk pages of deletion requests.
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tour CMA-CGM
[edit]The building was completed by architect Zaha Hadid (1950–2016) in 2011. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term in the country lasted for 70 years, and the images can be undeleted in 2087.
- File:La tour CMA-CGM (Marseille) (7602253754).jpg
- File:Le Port (3635833798).jpg
- File:Marseille harbour mg 6429.jpg
- File:MarseilleNouveauPort.JPG
- File:Site implantation Quai dArenc Marseille.jpg
- File:Tour CGA Marseille.jpg
- File:Tour CMA-CGM & Tour La Marseillaise 2018.jpg
- File:Tour CMA-CGM.jpg
- File:TourCMACGMcladdingcentral.jpg
- File:TourCMACGMpied.jpg
- File:Tours La Marseillaise et CMA-CGM.jpg
_(7602253754).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I vaguely recall that it's OK when the building isn't finished yet, like with File:Le Port (3635833798).jpg? Vera (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The building in the image already displays most of the permanent exterior architecture, IMO they are subject to copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note. I have removed File:Tours La Marseillaise et CMA-CGM.jpg from en:La Marseillaise (skyscraper) per nomination. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tour CMA-CGM
[edit]COM:FOP France: recent structures.
- File:Marseille - "It takes two to tango" (16250709159).jpg
- File:Marseille - "It takes two to tango" (16251012007).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
RZuo (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Ceviche de Panamá.jpg
- File:Tamal panameño.jpg
- File:Restaurante Tamburelli (Panamá).jpg
- File:Aguadulce (Panamá).jpg
- File:Super Xtra, Arraiján.jpg
- File:Parque Libertador, Panamá.jpg
- File:Policía nacional de La Chorrera.jpg
- File:Hoteles de Colón,Panamá.jpg
- File:Boquete, Panamá.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kaylainserra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Origins Recovery Center in South Padre Island, Texas.jpg
- File:Olivier123.jpeg
- File:OlivierAttia.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kočevski Rog memorial chapel
[edit]Created after World War II. As we collect the photos that are free for any usage, there's no Commons-suitable freedom of panorama in Slovenia.
- File:Detail on the ceiling.jpg
- File:Jama pod Krenom kapela strop.jpg
- File:Jama pod Krenom pogled skozi kapelo.jpg
- File:Kapela pod Krenom.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 20:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
These watermarked SIPA images are of concern because they are from monumentos.pt, which claims copyright on its contents (section 2). If the images are separately licensed by their photographers, then evidence of permission should be given
- File:Valença, Aspecto das Fortificações.jpg
- File:Valença, uma Porta da Fortaleza.jpg
- File:Valença, outra Porta da Fortaleza.jpg
- File:Valença, olhando a Galiza.jpg
- File:Valença, o Rio Minho.jpg
- File:Valença, a Fortaleza.jpg
- File:Valença, Aspecto da Fortaleza.jpg
- File:6- Monsanto, Castello e Cappella de Santa Maria do Castello.jpg
- File:5- Monsanto, Rua.jpg
- File:4- Monsanto, Pelourinho e Igreja da Misericordia.jpg
- File:1- Monsanto, Aspecto Geral, Anno 1957.jpg
- File:2- Monsanto, Villa.jpg
- File:3- Monsanto, Rua.jpg
- File:Caminha, Igreja Matriz, Cappella-Mor.jpg
- File:Caminha, Igreja Matriz de N.S.ra da Assumpção.jpg
- File:16- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Interior da Torre de Entrada.jpg
- File:14- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Entradas do Castelo e da Tenalha.jpg
- File:15- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Entrada da Praça de Armas.jpg
- File:13- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Castelejo.jpg
- File:11- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Pedra de Armas.jpg
- File:12- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Fachada Sudeste.jpg
- File:10- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Galleria Encoberta.jpg
- File:9- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Salão Nobre.jpg
- File:8- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira.jpg
- File:7- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira.jpg
- File:6- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira.jpg
- File:5- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Vista Geral.jpg
- File:4- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Fachada Nordeste.jpg
- File:2- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Angulo Sul.jpg
- File:1- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Vista Geral.jpg
- File:3- Castello de Santa Maria da Feira, Vista Parcial da Muralha.jpg
moogsi(blah) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moogsi:
Please check the following page, which clearly states that IHRU through its SIPA system makes all content on www.monumentos.pt available through the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND-3.0 license: (see Pt. 3) http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SitePageContents.aspx?id=184e5446-f152-4c3e-ab84-04e0ddcedc06
All but one of the SIPA photographs I have uploaded are from the period 1935-1944, when the Salazar regime litterally photographed every old monument in Portugal, everywhere across the nation, and repaired most of them, in the spirit of patriotism etc. That's why the IHRU/SIPA archives have litterally tens of thousands of old photos (as well as drawings)from across Portugal from that period. One of the Monsanto photographs I uploaded is from 1957, though, as its title says. The reason the IHRU watermarks the photos is very simple: they want to attract attention. At the moment, we're only about 1,500 registered users of the site. Not many, if you ask me, considering the extraordinary quality of the database... I hope this answers your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Zyx (talk • contribs) 23:19 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing my attention to the license, but -NC or -ND licenses are unfortunately incompatible with Commons. I elaborate on your talk page --moogsi(blah) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Both NC and ND disqualify images for use of Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Election posters in Latvia
[edit]Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for election posters in Latvia.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for election posters in the United Kingdom.
- File:Election poster, Aire Road, Wetherby (May 2010) 001.jpg
- File:Election poster, Aire Road, Wetherby (May 2010) 002.jpg
- File:Election poster, Aire Road, Wetherby (May 2010) 003.jpg
- File:European election poster 09 Stratford.jpg
- File:Frank McCoubrey.png
- File:Hugh Smyth poster.png
- File:Scottish Socialist, Green, Scottish Liberal Democrats.JPG
- File:Scottish Voice election sign.jpg
_001.jpg){kind=link}
_002.jpg){kind=link}
_003.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - File:Election poster, Aire Road, Wetherby (May 2010) 001.jpg Does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright. Basic text, no design work, only a name. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- It contains a Labour Party logo and a photo of a woman. Those parts could be argued to be more complex than w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg, which is protected by copyright in the United Kingdom. The logo and the photo are not de minimis since they are important for determining that the poster is an election poster for the Labour Party, although some people presumably also recognise the party solely by the
.svg){kind=link}
name "James Lewis". --Stefan4 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the case of 001, I would suggest that the photo is definitely deminimis, it is too small to be seen properly and the majority of the adjacent text cannot be read. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - File:Scottish Socialist, Green, Scottish Liberal Democrats.JPG Any art and design work deminimus. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the logos are important for the posters: they help people identifying the parties. Thus, they can't be de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would beg to differ, in this instance the logos (which are very basic in themselves) are not required for recognition purposes, the text can do that. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the logos are important for the posters: they help people identifying the parties. Thus, they can't be de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted 4, kept the others. Yann (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Election posters in Ukraine
[edit]Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for election posters in Ukraine.
- File:HPIM6011-nicaan-041223.JPG
- File:Vitali Klitschko Wahlwerbung Ukraine 2.JPG
- File:Vitali Klitschko Wahlwerbung Ukraine 3.JPG
- File:Vitali-Klitschko Campaign-Advertising Ukraine detail.jpg
- File:Yatsenyuk poster.jpg
- File:Выборы на Украине 2007 (5).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not FoP, but DW. First four images are DWs. Fifth may be PD-eneligible. At the sixth image posters are not main object of the photo. So first four Delete, 5th, 6th Keep.Anatoliy (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Yatsenyuk poster.jpg was already nominated here and was kept as PD-ineligible. I think that File:HPIM6011-nicaan-041223.JPG does not meet the threshold of originality as well (public domain version of the main element «Так!» is anyway available, say, on the stamp File:Tak! Pair of stamps of Ukraine, 2005.jpg), and the details of the waving flag are not visible at the picture because of its low quality. As there are no other copyrightable elements on this poster so that a free equivalent can be easily created, I think it should be kept as PD-ineligible for the text and DM for the waving flag.
- Concerning the others, File:Vitali Klitschko Wahlwerbung Ukraine 3.JPG and File:Выборы на Украине 2007 (5).jpg may be used to show how election posters are used in Ukraine, however, the posters themselves may require blurring, especially on File:Vitali Klitschko Wahlwerbung Ukraine 3.JPG. File:Vitali Klitschko Wahlwerbung Ukraine 2.JPG and File:Vitali-Klitschko Campaign-Advertising Ukraine detail.jpg are focused on the copyrighted Klitschko portrait and thus should be deleted — NickK (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, copyright issues seem to be difficult ...
- What's about this blurred version:
- • Jaybear • ...disc. • 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with Anatoliy on all but the last -- given the file name and the categories, it's hard to say that this is DM . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Election posters in Denmark
[edit]Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for election posters in Denmark.
- File:Election posters denmark 2007 padborg 0013 cropped.jpg
- File:Election posters denmark 2007 padborg 0013.jpg
- File:Election posters denmark 2007 padborg 0014.jpg
- File:Valgplakater2.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is most likely not the copyright holder of the images.
- File:0107 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.JPG
- File:0108 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.JPG
- File:0121 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.JPG
- File:0124 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.JPG
- File:0125 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.JPG
- File:0733 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0738 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0739 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0740 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0741 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0742 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0743 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0744 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0747 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0749 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0752 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0756 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0758 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0760 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0761 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0796 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0826 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0828 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0830 Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:0832 Regisseur Ed Ehrenberg beim Dreh zu - Als der Tod ins Leben wuchs - im Volksmuseum von Sanok.jpg
- File:Log cabin from rzepiennik 2013.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am Marek Silarski (aka Silar) author of this photos. ps. Please repeat former version, now. ms
- Comment To be the author of the images does not necessarily imply to be the copyright holder of them. It must be proved that the uploader has permission from the film's owners to license the images under the licenses given or to show evidence of that such permission is not required. Jespinos (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belarus-Minsk-Loshytsa-Making_Movie_about_Civil_War-6.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_Rossellini_A_Hopkins.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martine_Carol_in_Action_of_the_Tiger_trailer_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Jespinos: A person's photographs are the person's own work and copyright, unless that person was hired by the film's owner or otherwise agreed by the person. --Closeapple (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Question for Silar: Are these taken with your own camera? Were you an employee of the film when you photographed these scenes? Did you agree to any restrictions in order to be able to get to this location? --Closeapple (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- [moved from User talk:Closeapple] I was taken this photos my own camera, i not worker of this movie, i got agreement to take photos from director, this is all. Silar 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Based on the response by Silar above, this is Silar's own photography, not performed as work for the film's owner. Therefore, Silar is the creator and the copyright holder. --Closeapple (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Since this is not true SVG, it should have all it's usages replaced with File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg and then be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 04:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- What do you mean not a true SVG? I think the better method is to improve this file if you dont find it good enough, but just going around trying to delete things because you think it isn't good enough is nuts. Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I mean exactly what I said! It's not true SVG format, it's an extremely poor trace of File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg and looks horrible compared to that JPEG because the trace caused all sorts of fragments and crap. It's not really SVG, it's one big clump of junk. Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Look at File:Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago.svg which is of similar complexity. That's a true SVG, everything is clean and independent. The JPEG already has an SVG tag on it suggesting recreation in SVG would be prudent, and is categorized in "National flag and coat of arms images that should use vector graphics", which is a personal category of the same user that created the Trinidad and Tobago arms, so he will probably get to making a good proper SVG of the JPEG when he has time. There's no need for this horrible trace. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you think it is junk, go to the graphic workshop and try to get a better version, but tagging it for deletion is combative and destructive. I think some of us would prefer vector graphics, even if not perfect. Try to improve, not attack and tare down. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I LOVE vector graphics, but not when they're a clump of junk. This is actually worse than the JPEG it's traced from. I can't make it better, very few users can and the Graphic Lab is so backlogged it would be futile to put this there. I've shown you the Trinibago coat of arms, the user who has made it, and that it's on his list. Eventually he, or someone with similar abilities, will get to it. In the meantime, there's no need to keep this here. Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you think it is junk, go to the graphic workshop and try to get a better version, but tagging it for deletion is combative and destructive. I think some of us would prefer vector graphics, even if not perfect. Try to improve, not attack and tare down. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Look at File:Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago.svg which is of similar complexity. That's a true SVG, everything is clean and independent. The JPEG already has an SVG tag on it suggesting recreation in SVG would be prudent, and is categorized in "National flag and coat of arms images that should use vector graphics", which is a personal category of the same user that created the Trinidad and Tobago arms, so he will probably get to making a good proper SVG of the JPEG when he has time. There's no need for this horrible trace. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I mean exactly what I said! It's not true SVG format, it's an extremely poor trace of File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg and looks horrible compared to that JPEG because the trace caused all sorts of fragments and crap. It's not really SVG, it's one big clump of junk. Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: No-one is going to realistically improve on this particular image because it's an automatic trace with no (or very little) extra work. If they want to make a vector version then they will start their own illustration from scratch. {{TracedSVG}} could be used to tag this image, but it's not elements of the image, it's the whole thing. At least replace this with the jpg and tag it if it can't be deleted, which it should be. --moogsi·(blah) 17:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- What's with all the negativity? It's as if we are about destroying instead of creating. It's not that bad, and someone can surely improve it if needed. Wikipedia and Wikimedia weren't made over night, they grew. Things grow around here, evolve, change for the better. It's not about being perfect the first time always. Gosh. --16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is a difference between being unduly negative and being honest. This image is worse than the JPEG is was traced from, that's simply a fact. Another fact is you will be hard-pressed to find graphic artists here on Commons with the skills to make it what it should be. I've listed one such user, but he is incredibly busy so it would be a very long wait. Fry1989 eh? 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I apologise, my comment is unnecessarily harsh. I could have phrased it better. --moogsi (blah) 12:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}