Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![4 File:"Baiju Goradia, At Bandra–Worli Sea Link".jpg](#File:"Baiju_Goradia,_At_Bandra–Worli_Sea_Link".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![22 File:2006CappyThompson StainedGlass"Holy Family Increasing Light" Evergreen College Library(Detail)by Alan Van Dyke.jpg](#File:2006CappyThompson_StainedGlass"Holy_Family_Increasing_Light"_Evergreen_College_Library(Detail)by_Alan_Van_Dyke.jpg){kind=link}
_(7188189440).jpg){kind=link}
![38 File:81-717.А 714.А "Sokolniki" retro train (Ретропоезд 81-717.А 714.А "Сокольники") (5950623207).jpg](#File:81-717.А_714.А_"Sokolniki"_retro_train_(Ретропоезд_81-717.А_714.А_"Сокольники")_(5950623207).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Image is a logo and in my view IS above Threshold of originality Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a logo, concern is that this is a from a third party and above the threshold of originality Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a third party logo, above threshold or orignality, and I'm skeptical about the license here Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
its a private 27.106.12.57 17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![17:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/19#c-27.106.12.57-2013-01-19T17:11:00.000Z-File:"Baiju_Goradia,_At_Bandra–Worli_Sea_Link".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Recently uploaded, unused, effectively blanked by uploader (who I assume is the IP) so can be speedily deleted Herby talk thyme 17:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![17:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/19#c-Herbythyme-2013-01-19T17:35:00.000Z-File:"Baiju_Goradia,_At_Bandra–Worli_Sea_Link".jpg){kind=link}
Accidentally created. Was meant for Wikipedia; not Wikimedia Commons. JPKid888 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy - gone Herby talk thyme 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
copyvio (see source) Rbrausse (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Vanilla copyvio so speedy and gone Herby talk thyme 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ya se borró una vez por no tener los permisos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_Repsol.jpg Laura Fiorucci (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non free logo. Trijnsteltalk 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The 3D effect makes the logo far from being simple shapes Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep: The 3D effect is just a simple gradient, bellow the COM:TOO for me. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept as PD-textlogo. --Krd 13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Non free logo 93.156.140.35 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreed. Trijnsteltalk 23:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Violation of source image authors' copyright. At least one part (File:Вид на Рязанский Кремль.JPG) is not taken by the uploader. A.Savin 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Здравствуйте! Не могли бы вы пояснить, почему авторское право было нарушено? В описаниии используемого файла написано, что его можно использовать под свободной лицензии, в том числе и изменять. Xardaas (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Составные части - сделаны другими авторами. Вы обязаны их указывать со ссылкой на все исходные изображения. --A.Savin 11:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Проверьте сейчас, пожалуйста. Xardaas (talk)
Kept: Withdrawn. A.Savin 11:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав на исходных произведений: в коллаже используются несвободные памятники Есенина и Олегу Рязанскому, ( No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks). Dogad75 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio 
(discusión) 03:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Emptiness. Sammyday (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 03:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
just unused link Petrus Adamus (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:2006CappyThompson StainedGlass"Holy Family Increasing Light" Evergreen College Library(Detail)by Alan Van Dyke.jpg
[edit]by_Alan_Van_Dyke.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
by_Alan_Van_Dyke.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but the original glass window is the work of a living artist and thereby copyrighted. As the freedom-of-panorama exemption in US copyright law covers only buildings, this image violates the copyright of the original artist. Image needs permission from the original artist or deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The owner doesn't want to be here seriously; Montazeri1352 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC) no its not he is well famous guy in computer networking field...............
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot from the Eurovision Song Contest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgAmB-VFu0w (±4:00) Clausule (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of Eurovision performance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUstrmJzyc ±0:33) Clausule (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a violation of the image. Pablodiego15 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, privacy issues. Yann (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
User page photo. Professional shot, unlikely photo was taken by uploader. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no description. Dubious copyright, out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note that a small number of user page photos are normally allowed and are not considered out of scope (see Commons:SCOPE#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
_(7188189440).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(7188189440).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of the copyrighted official map of Moscow Metro. A.Savin 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
_(7188189440).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Russavia. Yann (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
_(7188189440).jpg){kind=link}
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, no categories, etc Frédéric (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
File:81-717.А 714.А "Sokolniki" retro train (Ретропоезд 81-717.А 714.А "Сокольники") (5950623207).jpg
[edit]_(5950623207).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5950623207).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of official Moscow Metro map (copyrighted). A.Savin 22:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Russavia. Yann (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
i changed profile Berrouachedi (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Morning ☼ (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio ([1] DHN (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 03:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 03:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. Zaha Hadid is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center 2.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center 3.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center 4.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center 5.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center 6.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center.jpg
- File:Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center construction.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 03:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value at this size - also possible copyvio - no EXIF etc INeverCry 03:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - scanned photo - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 04:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 04:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 04:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. There is no evidence of {{Attribution}} and/or {{PD-AM-exempt}}. Takabeg (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused for 5 years; misdrawn; bad topology; unlikely future need; unstandard naming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Flickr account says all rights reserved, no evidence user (which uploaded no other images) is connected to Flickr account in any way. If they are the Flickr account owner they should be able to mark the image as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA on Flickr. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As owner of the photo in question, I have changed its licensing on Flickr to Creative Commons Attribution. Thank you Douglas Drew, aka Buster & Bubby on FLICKR.
- Withdrawn. Flickr account has been updated (licenses don't match, Flickr has CC-BY and file description page has CC-BY-SA, so I updated the page). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. There is no proof of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, {{PD-old}}. Moreover, the same image was posted to muslim heritage on 6 May 2007 as Biruni. Takabeg (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: comic work of pt:Stuart Carvalhais (1887-1961) = {{PD-old}}-fail. Permission is needed. Gunnex (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The Author is not Yoann Le Goff but Claude Delorme as we can read on the flickr link... so the user of flickr is not the owner, so we can say that picture is under cc-by-sa-2.0. mik@ni 08:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- NB : Claude Delorme is the author of the photo. For the poster, we haven't any information. - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe that the flickr uploader had the right to release these images under the licence that they have done. These are publicity/press images that were in use before their May 2012 upload to Flickr - as evidenced, for example by their use in February 2012 at autoblog - http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/01/jaguar-celebrates-20-years-of-xj220/ Biker Biker (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe that the flickr uploader had the right to release these images under the licence that they have done. These are publicity/press images that were in use before their May 2012 upload to Flickr - as evidenced, for example by their use in February 2012 at autoblog - http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/01/jaguar-celebrates-20-years-of-xj220/ Biker Biker (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iraq
- File:Panorama Azadî Duhok 2012 2.JPG
- File:Panorama Azadî Duhok 2012 1.JPG
- File:Muzexaneya Duhokê ya Folklorî 2012.JPG
- File:Ibn Elmstewfi Statue in Hewler Castle.jpg
- File:Statue of Mubarak Ben Ahmed Sharaf-Aldin - 1169-1239 - Historian - Citadel - Erbil - Iraq.jpg
- File:Women Walk Past Citadel Facade - Erbil - Iraq.jpg
- File:Hilltop Monument at Cemetery to Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq - 01.jpg
- File:Abonaas statue of the poet in Baghdad.jpg
- File:14 July Traffic Circle.JPG
- File:C (99).jpg
- File:C (68).JPG
- File:Wall Display of Contemporary Photos of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Kurdistan Sulaymaniyah province 184.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Horrible quality, small blurry and dark. Dozens of better shots available. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 10:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The source site [2] has a general copyright notice at the bottom "Copyright©2009. All Rights Reserved.". It has no specific copyright notices on individual images but a permission on the main page "You are welcome to copy images from my site - Please give credit if you use it online. If you publish an image from my site - You must give credit." That's fine for copying and publishing, but does not mention (or imply) anything about derivatives. Given the overall "all rights reserved" we must assume that there is no permission for derivatives, so the images are not free enough for the Commons. Simonxag (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also:
- File:A time of anxiety.jpg
- File:Those silent and snowy days, I watched it all melt and melt away, 76x64 inches, 2010 mixed media.jpg
- File:The beauty of a moment condemned and crucified for making a crack in the wall,2010 75x44 Inches.jpg
- File:Love left as easily as it came, darkness fell and we had no one left to blame, 2011, 73 x38.5 Inches.jpg
No evidence of permission from the artist, Sara Rahbar.
In this case:
we have no permission from the artist or from the photographer credited in the image filename.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Connormah as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Same rationale as the other one that was uploaded, Facebook indicated that this image was taken by a private photographer, and is copyrighted NOT a congressional one. We have no proof that the Office of Rep. DeSantis owns the rights to this. January (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- See [3], it is marked with "© Linda Bainter Lovin' the Light Photography". Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of orignality concern, romania Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern , spain - owing to pawprint inclusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Jespinos (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Jespinos (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete Unlikely, cover of Brazilian magazine "Gospel Magazine", 2005, as described via http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickipanema2/96352236 (2006, All rights reserved, "foto da capa da Revista Gospel Magazine (out/2005)". Gunnex (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Per http://worldairlinenews.com/industry-use-of-images/, "All images in the Airliners Gallery and our support blogs are copyrighted photos with all rights retained by the individual staff photographers. Prints and posters purchased from the Airliners Gallery are for the private use of collectors and cannot be used for commercial purposes." This shows that this image is not in the public domain. David1217 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
non free logo Sealle (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unclear copyright status: Sourced with a 404-Panoramio-link (apparently deleted, Panoramio user still active but I did not find any corresponding file in his Panoramio-uploads, per file info uploaded at Panoramio in 31.03.2008) but previously circulating via (example) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=412751 (2006, "Will_NE") = http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i88/WillCorreia/petrolinaaerea.jpg?t=1164209400 (last modified: 2006, identical res) or here. Might be a case of COM:LL... Gunnex (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Simple text in a jpg, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Advertising purpose, rights on images unclear. Funfood ␌ 17:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear rights, sure no own work. Funfood ␌ 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear rights, sure no own work. Funfood ␌ 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation 
Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Converted from no source since - a specific source is in fact given. No clear evidence is given that this file is in the public domain, but considering all the weird copyright rules around World War II photos I'm not sure - it might be. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the author is indeed en:George Rodger then it's a clear copyvio - author was working for Life Magazine then and AFAIR they have renewed all their copyright on 1940s images. --Denniss (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
A photo from 1930 is normally only in the public domain if the photographer died in 1942 or earlier. Here, the photographer is not even named, so we must assume he probably was alive after that. Besides that, the photograph is most likely still protected by copyright in the US until January 1, 1026. Rosenzweig τ 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
A photo from 1931 is normally only in the public domain if the photographer died in 1942 or earlier. Here, the photographer is not even named, so we must assume he probably was alive after that. Besides that, the photograph is most likely still protected by copyright in the US until January 1, 1027. Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused; was derived from File:US 1.svg (according to original at Wikivoyage); PNG files derived from SVG files are generally not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused; was derived from File:US 20.svg (according to original at Wikivoyage); PNG files derived from SVG files are generally not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused; was derived from File:US 50.svg (according to original at Wikivoyage); PNG files derived from SVG files are generally not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused; was derived from File:US 6.svg (according to original at Wikivoyage); PNG files derived from SVG files are generally not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unused; was derived from File:US 30.svg; PNG files derived from SVG files are generally not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Rights on shown images unclear. Funfood ␌ 21:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Converted into DR from no source since tag. Since the uploader here is established and seems to understand policy I find their statement that the original image on Picasa Web Albums was released under CC-BY-SA to be credible. However that album has been taken down since, and it's hard to rule out license laundering without seeing the account it came from. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. At this point, the image should be deleted due to lack of licensing. As Derrick states, the image has been removed from Picasa account. I have been unable to reach the album owner or find the image elsewhere, so again, we should just delete it. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Models and pictures in the background may not be freely licensed. Funfood ␌ 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Wilhelm Kratt died in 1949 (see karlsruhe:Wilhelm Kratt), so this photo isn't in the PD until 2020. Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW of images with unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
File:3rd International Conference on Navy and Ship Building Nowadays (NSN2003), St Petursburg, Russia.pdf
[edit]Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
20minutos.es does not license under a CC license those images coming from agencies. As this image lack source information therefore preventing us from knowing its actual author, it's impossible to claim CC Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an album cover, and should not be hosted on the Commons, unless it is deemed not to meet the threshold of originality. Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, the reactor Superphenix is located in France. As France has no freedom-of-panorama exemption, this photo violates the copyright of the creator of the image drawn or projected onto the cooling-tower. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The french nuclear power station Superphenix has no cooling towers of this type, see File:Superphénix et Malville.jpg and File:Superphénix 2.jpg. Superphenix used, as far as i know, nearby Rhône River for cooling. However, can't locate the position of questionable cooling tower. -> {{FoP-unknown}}.--Wdwd (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is definitely not Superphenix. The tower cannot get a copyright, but the drawing does. Yann (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
circular redirect Nick Moreau (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SamuelFreli as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo INeverCry 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by now blocked brand rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per w:Udutu; PD-textlogo. Please take the time to check on the notability of each company whose logo you nominate for deletion. Chances are, some notable ones are being lost in the shuffle. "Promo" and "not in use" are not deletion reasons, nor is whether the uploader was blocked or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There's no reason to have this version (which has weird cropping and is a gif, rarely the best format for anything, let alone a static image) when we have File:Udutu-logo.png. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: superseded as stated above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SamuelFreli as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo INeverCry 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan.
- File:SV100165-azer genocide memorial.jpg
- File:The Eternal Flame monument, Martyrs' lane.JPG
- File:Shaxidlerxiyabani.JPG
- File:Martyrs' lane, victims of Black January.JPG
- File:Martyrs' lane, January 2010.JPG
- File:Martyrs Lane, Baku.jpg
- File:ShahidXalqan.JPG
- File:Martyrs Lane in Baku.jpg
- File:20 Yanvar-2.JPG
- File:Shahidlerxiyabani.JPG
- File:Shahidlar.JPG
- File:Pochetniy karaul.JPG
- File:20 yanvar.JPG
- File:TV tower and the Eternal Flame.JPG
- File:Xiyaban1.jpg
- File:Bakı, Şəhidlər Xiyabanı, 20012012.jpg
- File:Bakı, Şəhidlər Xiyabanı, 20012012(002).jpg
- File:Bakı, Şəhidlər Xiyabanı, 20012012(001).jpg
- File:The Eternal Flame, Baku.JPG
- File:Baku - Moschee.JPG
- File:Martyrs' Lane Mosque Baku.jpg
- File:SV100197.jpg
- File:Türk Şəhidlər məscidi.jpg
- File:Мечеть на Аллее Шахидов.JPG
- File:Baki Turk shehitleri.jpg
- File:Tukish Soldiers Memorial.jpg
- File:Türk Şəhidləri abidəsi.jpg
- File:Baku(20 yanvar).JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- File:Pochetniy karaul.JPG should be kept per Article 20 of Azerbaijani copyright law: the presentation of the work does not constitute the main feature of the reproduction in this case (that is the main subject is the honor guard, not the building, which is cut off). Brandmeister (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Per above Brandmeister. --Cekli829 05:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no copyvio; the Azerbaijani law provides for the use of panorama images for non-commercial purposes, and Wikimedia Commons is a non-commercial project. I also have reasons to doubt User:Takabeg's integrity. He nominated a file uploaded by myself, for which the panoramic view law is not even applicable, as it displays nothing but a fence, and no real copyrighted architectural landmarks. From the looks of this list, it seems like Takabeg went nicely through as many Azerbaijan-related media as he could retrieve in a bad-faith attempt to bring down the qualify of Wikipedia articles where these photographs feature. Parishan (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete excepte Pochetniy karaul photo per Brandmeister. -Pete F (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Contrary to the comment above, many, including me, would say Commons itself is legally a commercial site because it solicits money for its support. The only truly non-commercial uses are free sites without any advertising or printed works that are distributed without charge. In any case, however, Commons policy requires that all works be available for commercial use.
As for the one image singled out by Brandmeister and Pete for keeping, while it does not show the whole memorial, it shows distinctive architectural features. There is nothing in the law that requires the whole work to be shown before a copyvio occurs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I undeleted the image pointed out by Brandmeister, it's not possible to protect works based on traditional/classical architecture (design already exist since some hundred years) --Denniss (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did you undelete this image which Brandmeister didn't point out ? Takabeg (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
And I have deleted them both again for two reasons.
First, if I were able to make an oil copy of a Rembrandt, it would have a copyright, even though the original is long ago PD. If I were an architect and were to design a building, it would have a copyright, even if it were similar to an ancient work. The only exception to the rule that copies have their own copyrights is photographs of PD-Art, and even that is the case only in one District of the US Federal judicial system. Therefore, Denniss's reasoning is flawed.
Second, and more to the point, no one, not even Administrators, may not simply restore images because they think the closing Admin made a mistake. This should have been discussed first on my talk page and, if that failed there (as it would), then Denniss should have posted an Undeletion Request. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
gezeigtes Werk: Foto ist kein Beiwerk Ralf Roleček 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Original photo is presumably protected by copyright. -Pete F (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Subject is in Germany -- very borad German FOP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruta_11-CH_(Chile).svg Ya existe el archivo, y de mayor calidad GPOChile (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruta_24_(Chile).svg ya existe el archivo de mayor calidad GPOChile (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: Policy says we do not delete pre-existing raster files. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
ya existe un archivo y de mayor calidad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruta_25_(Chile).svg GPOChile (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: Policy says we do not delete pre-existing raster files . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruta_41-CH_(Chile).svg ya existe el archivo y de mayor calidad GPOChile (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: Policy says we do not delete pre-existing raster files . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_ID-1a.svg Ya está el elemento y de mayor calidad GPOChile (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Kept the subject, deleted the other, The subject renders smooth curves at high magnification, the other renders polygons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Ruta_A-123.svg Se reemplazará este diagrama por el mapa del link GPOChile (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Completely different -- one is a map, the other is a schematic. They have different route names. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Este diagrama se reemplazará por un mapa completo de la ruta en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Ruta_A-31.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Completely different -- one is a map, the other is a schematic. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia.
- File:Tsitsernakaberd memorial.jpg
- File:Khachkar in memory of Baku victims. Tsitsernakaberd.jpg
- File:Khachkar in memory of Sumqayit victims. Tsitsernakaberd.jpg
- File:Tsitsernakaberd Nagono Karabakh War grave.jpg
- File:Echmiadzin Genocide memorial.jpg
- File:Memorial khatchkar to the Armenian Genocide in Etchmiadzin, Armenia.jpg
- File:Дизайнерская работе в банке..jpg
- File:Yerevan graffiti.jpg
- File:Parc cascade.jpg
- File:Yerewan monument.jpg
- File:Viw from cascade2008.jpg
- File:Cascade Park in Yerevan, Winter time, at night, 2.jpg
- File:Cascade Park in Yerevan, Winter time, at night, 1.jpg
- File:Cafesjian facade.jpg
- File:Cascade aigle.JPG
- File:Cascade of Yerevan HD.jpg
- File:Cascade of Yerevan HDef.jpg
- File:Cascade Yerevan.jpg
- File:Cascade-detail.jpg
- File:Cascades, Yerevan, Armenia.jpg
- File:Kev pc cas1.jpg
- File:Tamanyan Cascade Yerevan.jpg
- File:Tamanyan street seen from Yerevan Cascade.jpg
- File:Up view motif cascade armenia.jpg
- File:Архитектурный комплекс Каскад, Ереван, Армения.jpg
- File:Yerevan new cascade.jpg
- File:Viw from cascade2008.jpg
- File:Armenie 4.JPG
- File:Monument to Battle of Bash-Aparan.jpg (note: Rafael Israelyan)
- File:Sartarapat memorial12.jpg
- File:Musa Ler1.jpg
- File:Nor Hachin1.jpg
- File:Monument in Abovyan city.jpg
- File:Sartarabad ethnographic museum kevork.jpg
- File:Saint-sarkis erevan.JPG
- File:St.Sarqis.jpg
- File:Saradarapat memorial.JPG
- File:Sardarapat Battle Memorial Complex.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial belltower1.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial belltower2.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial complex.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial Park.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial Wall.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Memorial.jpg
- File:Sardarapat memorial.jpg
- File:SardarapatMuseum.jpg
- File:Sardarapat Panorama.jpg
- File:Sart ethno muse.jpg
- File:Etnographic Museum Sardarapat.jpg
- File:Musaler.jpg
- File:MeshadiAzizbekov, Yerevan.jpg
- File:Հուշարձան Գառնում.jpg
- File:Artem Mikoyan Memorial Sanahin.jpg
- File:Mikoyan01.jpg
- File:Mikoyan02.jpg
- File:Shaumyan1.jpg
- File:Shaumyan 2.jpg
- File:Stepanavan2.jpg
- File:CascadeEVN.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- KeepFor keeping these pictures on WC.Brejnev (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all. Il n'y aura aucune poursuite (ni menace de) judiciaire à propos de ces images. Faut pas être plus royaliste que le roi. Donc conserver tant que personne ne s'en est plaint. Varmin (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lire Commons:Critères d'inclusion/Principe de précaution, s'il vous plaît. Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Did the Armenian parliament enact amendment of the copyright law ? Takabeg (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all This is ridiculous. Why are all pictures taken in Armenia being deleted? User Takabeg is Azeri and is obviously pursuing a political motivation by proposing to delete all Armenian-related pages. This has to stop. Serouj (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Calm down please. I'm not an Azeri. I'm interested not only in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia, but also Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan etc... You cannot legitimate your copyright violations with your ethnocentric invalid argument. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - the nomination seems to be based in the law and our copyright policy, none of the objections above are. I am no expert on Freedom of Panorama, but from what I am able to discern, this looks like a clear decision. -Pete F (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear violations of the copyrights of the architects and sculptors. Also, a few of them appear to be images by photographers who have not licensed them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - very low quality INeverCry 04:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no clear educational value, no categories, no useful description. But the colors could be easily improved if for some reason the image needs to be kept. -Pete F (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Author is given as "wikipedia." Presumably this was derived from en:File:La_ragazza_dalla_pelle_di_luna.jpg. I'm not sure if that file's licensing is compatible with Commons (I don't think it exists here), but in any case I'm not sure why we'd need a stretched/distorted version of the image. Gyrofrog (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also File:Zeudi Araya1.jpg, which is also a stretched version of the original, though not an exact duplicate of File:Zeudi Araya2.jpg. I've tagged File:Zeudi Araya1.jpg, but pointed it to this subpage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tomasz Wachowski as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Z obrazu wynika, że zrobiony był w atelier i mało prawdopodobne, że jest to autoportret. Postać przedstawiona na zdjęciu artystycznym nie jest właścicielem praw autorskich nawet jeżeli obraz stworzony został na zamówienie, a zamawiający zapłacił za odbitki. Właścicielem praw autorskich jest artysta fotograf. Przesyłający nie przedstawił żadnych wiarygodnych informacji o autorze i podaje siebie jako źródło ilustracji na której jest uwieczniony. Proszę o wyjaśnienie poruszonych kwestii.
Converted by me to DR, as nominator requested clarification. The same image in the same resolution is displayed in this article from April 2008. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This pictures was token by me in person in monastery in Cracow, where I was a studing in 1981. This pictures present my person in time I was monk. This monastery belonged photo-camera with self-timer, which have been used for making this picture - photo-room and photo-laboratory as well. Zboralski (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Jest nieusprawiedliwionym nadużyciem przypisywanie mi innych intencji niż dbałość o przestrzeganie praw autorskich. Nie interesują mnie preferencje seksualne postaci czy zamożność instytucji w której wykonano fotografię. Wniosek dotyczy naruszenia praw autorskich i tylko jako taki może być rozpatrywany. O moim obiektywnym nastawieniu może świadczyć fakt iż jestem autorem kategorii grupującej ilustracje na który przedstawiony jest pan Zboralski. Żałuję, że wcześniej nie zwróciłem uwagi na naruszenie praw autorskich przysługujących autorowi fotografii. Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Zboralski, I have removed your unproven personal attack against the original nominator (Tomasz Wachowski) and warn you not to restore it.
- This is about copyright, nothing else. Please refrain from using Commons for activism.
- While the request for speedy deletion wasn't appropriate IMO, the nominator's request for clarification was rational, as it is more likely — especially when considering your allegations about the wealth of the order — that they would have hired a professional photographer.
- Anyway, as you are identified by your real-name (and would therefore in case of copyright infringement be fully liable to litigation) I see your expressed statement that you shot this image by yourself as sufficient; Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wyjaśnienie kwestii autorstwa uważam za wystarczające do wycofania wniosku o usunięcie Keep. Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wyjaśnienie kwestii autorstwa uważam za wystarczające do wycofania wniosku o usunięcie
However, you have also claimed to be the photographer of all of your following uploads, which is highly questionable:
- File:Zboralski-and-mother-1960.jpg (you as a baby)
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership01.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership02.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership03.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership04.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership05.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership06.jpg
- File:Zboralski-nowak-civil-partnership07.jpg
- File:Manchester-pride2009-LGF-02.jpg
- File:Zboralski-1987-przewodniczacy-WRH.jpg
- File:Warszawski-ruch-homoseksualny1987-01.jpg
--Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I kept the top photo, but will wait for a response regarding the photos in the list immediately above. INeverCry 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Highly unlikely that these were actually taken by the uploader as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan.
- File:Baku - Flammentürme, Spieglung.JPG
- File:Baku Architecture Flame Towers.JPG
- File:Itschäri Schähär Baku Flame Towers.JPG
- File:Flame Towers Itschäri Schähär Baku.JPG
- File:Baku Panorama.jpg
- File:Cityscapes in Baku.jpg
- File:056Вид.JPG
- File:İçərişəhər nərd oynayanlar.jpg
- File:Баку1104.JPG
- File:Вид064.JPG
- File:Baku Flame Towers.jpg
- File:BakuTower1.jpg
- File:Flame Towers 2.jpg
- File:Flame Towers Baku Architecture.JPG
- File:Flame Towers from Selale Park.JPG
- File:Flame Towers(Alov).gif
- File:Flame Towers(Alov)1.JPG
- File:Flame Towers(Alov)2.JPG
- File:Flame Towers(Alov)3.JPG
- File:Flame Towers, Baku.JPG
- File:Flame Towers.JPG
- File:Flamebuildingsinbaku.JPG
- File:FlameTowers027.JPG
- File:FlameTowers040.JPG
- File:FlameTowers041.JPG
- File:Neftçilər prospekti, funiklyor.jpg
- File:Milli Park Bulvar Baku.JPG
- File:Panoramabild Baku Flame Towers Kristal Holl.JPG
- File:Milli Park Bulvar Baku2.JPG
- File:Flame Towers 01.JPG
- File:Baku 01.JPG
- File:Индустриальная часть города Баку.jpg
- File:Baku.JPG
- File:Bakının Xəzərdən panoramı.jpg
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no copyvio; the Azerbaijani law provides for the use of panorama images for non-commercial purposes, and Wikimedia Commons is a non-commercial project. I also have reasons to doubt User:Takabeg's integrity. He nominated a file uploaded by myself, for which the panoramic view law is not even applicable, as it displays nothing but a fence, and no real copyrighted architectural landmarks. From the looks of this list, it seems like Takabeg went nicely through as many Azerbaijan-related media as he could retrieve in a bad-faith attempt to bring down the qualify of Wikipedia articles where these photographs feature. Parishan (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I get tired of these personal attacks. Parishan has 269 edits on Commons and shows above that he or she does not understand our rules regarding commercial use. Takabeg has 315,000 edits on WMF projects, including almost 50,000 on Commons. He is a valued colleague and rarely wrong. The accusation of bad faith is just plain silly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Taken from Flickr. Flickr tells that it is available under cc-by, but that only seems to apply to the photo and not to the painting. It seems that this is a British painting by w:Philip de László from 1925. The painting is in the public domain in the United Kingdom since the artist died more than 70 years ago, but unfortunately, it is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. Stefan4 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
|REPLY: I personally uploaded this image from Flickr with proper attribution, because the uploader allows for its free use under Creative Commons provisions. I am not uploading the original painting or an image of the painting itself, but only what the Flickr uploader himself/herself created with clear permission under CC to use it for non-commercial purposes. Hence, I am not sure why or how the restrictions on the painting, even if it is 78 years old instead of 95 years old as a cut-off, would be relevant in this case. This file can be kept as is. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waov12 (talk • contribs) 2013-01-19T19:27:53 (UTC)
- You can't upload images of this painting until 95 years after the the painting was published. There is no evidence that the Flickr user has obtained permission from the painter's heirs. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: I am new to Wikipedia/Wikimedia so pardon my ignorance. But it seems you are saying that Wikipedia (thru all of you) just discovered that the Flickr uploader did not have permission from the painter's heirs, and yet Flickr itself has not discovered it or at least permitted it to be posted for well over 10 years now? Does Britain or Italy require such permission for non-commercial purposes, or are we interpreting these permission requirements from an American standpoint? Is Wikipedia governed solely by American law (I thought it was international). I am confused. And I do not want to repeat this same "error" again if you can tell me that what applies in America is universally applied elsewhere when in comes to intellectual property laws, etc. P.S.: I meant to write above that the painting is 88 years old, not 78 years old. Also, where did this 90 year requirement, as opposed to Britain's 70-year requirement, derive from? Thanks.Waov12 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law
- --moogsi(blah) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Flickr doesn't police itself; unless they get a takedown notice, they'll leave copyrighted works up there forever.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: I am new to Wikipedia/Wikimedia so pardon my ignorance. But it seems you are saying that Wikipedia (thru all of you) just discovered that the Flickr uploader did not have permission from the painter's heirs, and yet Flickr itself has not discovered it or at least permitted it to be posted for well over 10 years now? Does Britain or Italy require such permission for non-commercial purposes, or are we interpreting these permission requirements from an American standpoint? Is Wikipedia governed solely by American law (I thought it was international). I am confused. And I do not want to repeat this same "error" again if you can tell me that what applies in America is universally applied elsewhere when in comes to intellectual property laws, etc. P.S.: I meant to write above that the painting is 88 years old, not 78 years old. Also, where did this 90 year requirement, as opposed to Britain's 70-year requirement, derive from? Thanks.Waov12 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: Thanks for your answers regarding Flickr practices and shortcomings. However, we are dealing here with a painting that is only 7 years short of being allowed for publication under the 95-year rule that was cited above. So here are my questions:
- 1) The cited Wikipedia rule says that "for works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore expired in 2012) unless the owner filed for renewal (during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication) — the large majority of works published before 1964 have passed into the public domain, but it is imperative to determine—through a search at the Copyright Office—that copyright was not renewed" - so would not this rule apply instead of the 95 year rule? 2) This painting had also been auctioned already (see: http://www.artnet.com/artists/philip+alexius+de-l%C3%A1szl%C3%B3/portrait-of-the-hon-frank-b-kellogg-5Ab3RwWNdxBvURIC5F680g2), so I am not sure how the painter's heirs will have any more controlling interest -- please explain. Thanks.Waov12 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Read down to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act section. For the most part, UK works will get the full 95 years. Physical ownership, as a general rule, does not transfer copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. However, the URAA section you cited says that:
- Read down to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act section. For the most part, UK works will get the full 95 years. Physical ownership, as a general rule, does not transfer copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- 1) The cited Wikipedia rule says that "for works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore expired in 2012) unless the owner filed for renewal (during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication) — the large majority of works published before 1964 have passed into the public domain, but it is imperative to determine—through a search at the Copyright Office—that copyright was not renewed" - so would not this rule apply instead of the 95 year rule? 2) This painting had also been auctioned already (see: http://www.artnet.com/artists/philip+alexius+de-l%C3%A1szl%C3%B3/portrait-of-the-hon-frank-b-kellogg-5Ab3RwWNdxBvURIC5F680g2), so I am not sure how the painter's heirs will have any more controlling interest -- please explain. Thanks.Waov12 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- "After discussion, it was determined that the affected files would not be deleted en masse but reviewed individually. There was further discussion about the best method for review of affected files, resulting in the creation of Commons:WikiProject Public Domain." It seems therefore that deletion is subject to review and discussion in this case.
- I also consulted an IP attorney. He said he was of the opinion that the URAA does not clearly and directly address the issue of this 88-year old painting because the issue of physical ownership pertains to making copies of the original work, which doubtless is protected by copyright. In this painting case, we are not making copies of it, but simply posting a photo of it, in the same way that copyright protects a book from being reproduced or reprinted, as opposed to someone simply taking a picture of that book.
- Finally, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#cite_note-39) on Copyright says "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country." How do we know if the copyright for this painting was renewed? Thanks.Waov12 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does not matter if the copyright was renewed or not since the painting is a British work. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can show US publication, it's clearly in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I vote to keep. I do work in the area of intellectual property law and I find that the discussion here has gone to too many irrelevant or inappropriate points or issues. The only question is whether using the image of the Kellogg painting, for an article like Wikipedia's, violates copyright and other applicable laws. My short answer is No. This painting is protected by copyright precisely to prohibit its duplication or copying, dissemination, marketing, sale, distribution, etc., but not its mere illustrative citation or publication with full attribution, which I see is the purpose for its Wikipedia use. In plain and simple terms, copyright law also inquires into the purpose of using someone else's work, not just its mere appearance in some forum, to determine if property rights are violated. It is for this reason that images of this painting have been published (not copied, sold, distributed, circulated, etc.) by various organizations, including museums like the Smithsonian Institution (http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:npg_NPG.2006.113), local government sites (http://montana.official-city.com/frank-billings-kellogg/), portrait sites (http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-2872180805), etc., while acknowledging that copyright resides with the painter's family.Drshay111 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The websites you listed are either using it under a fair use claim (see {{Fair use}}), illegally or with permission from the copyright holder. As long as the copyright holder hasn't given any permission, the image can't be kept. See COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I will use the Smithsonian Institution as a test illustration, because they do not do anything illegal there and they do not post images like this under a fair use claim. I will have to check with the Smithsonian to see under what license they posted a photo of the contested painting twice, and get back to all of you in this Talk Page.Drshay111 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia. It is very clear by Commons policy that we only post images that are clearly PD, that can be duplicated and copied, used in dissemination, marketing, sale, distribution, etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The websites you listed are either using it under a fair use claim (see {{Fair use}}), illegally or with permission from the copyright holder. As long as the copyright holder hasn't given any permission, the image can't be kept. See COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is very clear precedent for deletion of works by Laszlo published 1923 or later, for reasons stated by nom. See Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1923 works by Philip Alexius de Laszlo, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:QueenPortugalAugustaVictoria.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per analysis by Stefan4 and precedents cited by Dcoetzee. -Pete F (talk)
Deleted: According to the Smithsonian web site, the painting was given to them in 2006. Therefore, it appears unlikely that it was published (in a legal sense) before then. Therefore its USA copyright will last until 120 years after creation, see File:PD-US table.svg. Since it was probably not published in the UK, the UK law is irrelevant.
As for the CC license on Flickr, that covers only the photograph, not the painting itself, and is irrelevant because if the painting were PD, then the photographer would have no copyright to license; if the painting is not PD, then any photograph infringes on the artist's copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason to think it wasn't published before them; if someone could have taken a picture of it before 1978, it was published, and we can't easily check that. If it wasn't published before 2006, the File:PD-US table.svg says that since the author is known, it's 70 years pma; it's neither anonymous or a corporate work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- 70 pma didn't apply in the US before 1978. And if it was published before 1978, it might have been published first in the UK, in which case its copyright was restored by the URAA. Too much uncertainty to keep. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wasn't arguing keep, just that 120 years wasn't relevant here. We could assume that it was published around creation date, which would give us 2021 as PD date in the US; that's what we've generally done with paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- 70 pma didn't apply in the US before 1978. And if it was published before 1978, it might have been published first in the UK, in which case its copyright was restored by the URAA. Too much uncertainty to keep. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Esta imagen es igual a File:Logotipo del PSOE.svg pero con una calidad menor y en otro formato. Por tanto solicito su borrado. AAM-10 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Support --Rizome (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete pre-existing raster files. Rizome, please use Delete={{Vd}} or Keep={{Vk}}. {{Support}} does not tell us whether you support the file (that is, keeping it) or its deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a photo of a screen. January (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's a photo of a screen at E3 2012. It's the same as with this picture, so I thought it would be OK? Umweltschützen (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the TV picture shown on the screen is likely to be separately copyrighted, so unless that is also freely-licensed (which is not usually the case) a photo which shows it prominently is not considered free. The other image you linked to may also have to be deleted. January (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- The image on the screen was live recorded and shown. Are such images really separately copyrighted? And who would have the copyright? Umweltschützen (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The question of copyright on images of event screens is tricky, because it depends on whether the feed to the screens was recorded. If the screens simply make the event easier for the audience to see and are not recorded, then there is not any copyright, because copyright does not exist in works that are not fixed (ie recorded). However, once the feed is recorded, then there is a copyright, which would nominally belong to the crew that produced it -- camera operators, producers, etc. All of them are almost certainly working under "work for hire" agreements, so the copyright actually belongs to the event organizers. Since recording is now so very cheap, it is hard to imagine that this was not recorded.
And, yes, the other image cited by Umweltschützen is also a problem and I have tagged it with {{Delete}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
ファイルを変更しすぎて、解説ページの画像と高解像度の画像に相違が出来てしまったため。 Nobukku (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This request apparently came out of the troubling inconsistency found between the thumbnail and the original file. I don't think that would be a good reason for deletion, since the inconsistency would be solved sooner or later automatically anyway. whym (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SamuelFreli as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo INeverCry 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The "blue face" can't be considered as simple geometry, therefore, PD-Textlogo is not valid. It should be used only on Wikipedia and not transfered on Commons. --SamuelFreli (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Even this is very simple. PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep basic geometric shape. -Pete F (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Very simple to be under any form of copyright. Fma12 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
An SVG version of this logo exists, which can replace this low-quality JPG image. Saucy (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 03:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soniasharma (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - very small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Tamil-nadu-map-.jpg
- File:Costume of tamil people.gif
- File:Tamilnadu tample.jpg
- File:Karthigai deepam.jpg
- File:Tamil-pongal-festival-dish.jpg
- File:Meenakshi temple in tamilnadu.jpg
- File:Kanyakumari nature.jpg
- File:Nice beach kanyakumari.jpg
- File:Nice kanyakumari.jpg
- File:Kanyakumari temple.jpg
INeverCry 04:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided: All files tagged with {{PD-Old}}, no authors cited. Covers of portuguese comic magazine pt:O Mosquito published between 1936-1986, with different editors and cartoonists. Acording to pt:O Mosquito...
- File:O Mosquito 5S N1.jpg - published between 1984-1986 (2x speedy deleted)
- File:O Mosquito 4S N1.jpg - published in 1975
- File:O Mosquito 3S N1.jpg - published in 1961
- File:O Mosquito 2S N1.jpg - published in 1960-1961
- File:O Mosquito 1S N1.jpg - apparently the nr. 1, published in 1936
The uploader argued that "By Portuguese law, any dissolved or defunct magazine and newspaper, enters in public domain. So this is the correct license for the file and there are no reason to delete him." (see e.g.File talk:O Mosquito 2S N1.jpg, I don´t know, of which law he based his obvious wrong position) and later on was talking unclearly about some rights sold.
- File:O Mosquito 5S N1.jpg
- File:O Mosquito 4S N1.jpg
- File:O Mosquito 3S N1.jpg
- File:O Mosquito 2S N1.jpg
- File:O Mosquito 1S N1.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Most likely not own work. Possibly taken from the web without mentioning the source. (At least some seem to be copyvio)
- File:Comm123.jpg (Taken from: http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/files/2012/11/Stage_PDA_web.jpg ?)
- File:Red comm.jpg (Duplicate of the above)
- File:M stages.jpg
- File:Mcgill conv.jpg
- File:Mcgill stage.jpg
- File:Mcgill masters.jpg
- File:Masteral dress at McGill.jpg
- File:Mcgill con2.jpg
- File:Mcgill officials.jpg
- File:Mcgill convo.jpg
- File:Mcgill convocation.jpg
- File:Masteral dress at Mcgill.jpg
- File:Mcgill undergrads.jpg
- File:McGill doctoral regalia.jpg (Taken from https://secure.flickr.com/photos/mr_quan_nguyen/2532903076 ?)
McZusatz (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
REPLY: I must admit I am new to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and may not have clearly identified the files as mine. I would appreciate it if you could let me know specifically which of these files (many of which are just duplicates of the same file, with minor edit/s or improvements) need to be fixed, etc. Thanks.
- See the first and the last image. Are those your own work? --McZusatz (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: It was a team that did/worked on these photos, and included me in some of these. Should I get permission from everyone and delete these images first to avoid any problem? If so, please delete all these images immediately with my apologies. Sorry I am a first-timer in creating articles/posting images. There is also that one painting (File:Mcgi kel.jpg) I uploaded from Flickr with all proper attribution. One editor in Wikipedia then informed me that my attribution would not help because the Flickr user did not have permission from the heirs of the late painter who did the painting less than 95 years ago (Sorry but how am I suppose to know that the Flickr user did not have permission if Flickr has posted it with Creative Commons provision for 10 years now?). In any case, kindly delete that, too, to avoid any problem. I will no longer post any images here and if I do, only from my own camera (if I still do someday). Thanks for all your help. Waov12 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the flickr image is not your fault. And it is also no problem to keep the images listed above. Therefore you "only" have to ask the photographer if he is willing to puslish the photo under any free licence. See com:otrs for this purpose. Images which appear in the list and are taken by yourself should also be confirmed by OTRS. Thanks. --McZusatz (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: I appreciate your explanation. I read that OTRS you sent, but it seems it takes at least a month or so to obtain permission, proper documentation, etc. So should we not delete all these questioned images first until I get all the permissions? These are group works, so I will need to find out first who will consent. I realize now that I cannot just do the postings on my own even if only for one-time use and for purely non-commercial purposes. The OTRS just looks like a tedious and complicated process, I am new to all these, and I do not wish to "use" the works of others just because I do not know what the rules are, or may know them but do not know how to navigate through them or to interpret them exhaustively, like what happened to that Flickr painting (e.g., I had no idea that Britain's cut-off period to publish is 70 years, America's is 95 years, and Wikipedia follows only American regulations). Thanks for all your help.Waov12 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the flickr image is not your fault. And it is also no problem to keep the images listed above. Therefore you "only" have to ask the photographer if he is willing to puslish the photo under any free licence. See com:otrs for this purpose. Images which appear in the list and are taken by yourself should also be confirmed by OTRS. Thanks. --McZusatz (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- REPLY: It was a team that did/worked on these photos, and included me in some of these. Should I get permission from everyone and delete these images first to avoid any problem? If so, please delete all these images immediately with my apologies. Sorry I am a first-timer in creating articles/posting images. There is also that one painting (File:Mcgi kel.jpg) I uploaded from Flickr with all proper attribution. One editor in Wikipedia then informed me that my attribution would not help because the Flickr user did not have permission from the heirs of the late painter who did the painting less than 95 years ago (Sorry but how am I suppose to know that the Flickr user did not have permission if Flickr has posted it with Creative Commons provision for 10 years now?). In any case, kindly delete that, too, to avoid any problem. I will no longer post any images here and if I do, only from my own camera (if I still do someday). Thanks for all your help. Waov12 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: wish of uploader McZusatz (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rahulmedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:DDnD.png
- File:Mywork.jpg
- File:TCK.jpg
- File:Creepy-image.png
- File:Scars on my face.png
- File:When sleeping-Writeup.jpg
- File:Fann.jpg
- File:Mails.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Khane-Hamledari.jpg
- File:Moein.jpg
- File:Rezaamini.jpg
- File:Hamed-komeili.jpg
- File:Hamed-Behdad.jpg
- File:Najafabad mehdi.JPG
- File:Roze.jpg
- File:Azaduniversity.jpg
- File:Drhosseini.jpg
- File:Dalana.jpg
- File:Kalamali.jpg
- File:Sangnegare.jpg
- File:Chagho.jpg
- File:Poorahmad.jpg
- File:HasanMahmoodi.jpg
- File:Bahrams.jpg
- File:Sadeghi.jpg
- File:Yadali.jpg
- File:Payandeh.jpg
- File:Pangkhane1.jpg
- File:Pengkhane-.jpg
- File:Pengkhane.jpg
- File:Pangkhaneh.jpg
- File:Asarkhane.jpg
- File:Arg sheykh.jpg
- File:Nmahandebad.jpg
- File:Kabutar.JPG
- File:Najafabad.jpg
- File:Arg.jpg
- File:Sheykhbahaei.JPG
- File:Sheykh bahaei.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The following files have no source information and no EXIF:
- File:FEEyAPB-ISAF.jpg
- File:FEEVOR.jpg
- File:FEEyAPBPekin2008.jpg
- File:Hyeres2005seq.jpg
- File:FEEyAPB.jpg
- File:FEEbegin.jpg
The following file is from the ISAF website and has no EXIF. No proof that the uploader is the author of the picture:
Badzil (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AONE (PRODUCER) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures, out of COM:PS.
Funfood ␌ 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be 2 different people in the source field, other uploads already deleted with no permission.
Funfood ␌ 18:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This photos are not created by the flickr user. On May 21 2005 the flickr user watched the European Song Contest 2005 at home, see his album. The next day, on May 22 at 11 o'clock, he uploaded this batch to the album Eurovision Final 2005. The photos are apparently a copy of some(news-)website photo slideshow: small in size, filenames different from everything the user uploaded to his flickr before, no EXIF, quality better then anything the flickr user uploader before, quality and camera position that a normal fan can impossibly make.
The same applies to the Semi-Finals album uploaded to flickr on May 21 at 13 o'clock.
To watch the photos in context of all other uploads from the flickr user start at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdaykin/page626/.
- File:07 macedonia final 2.jpg
- File:07 macedonia final 4.jpg
- File:2B - Portugal 2005 (2).jpg
- File:2B - Portugal 2005.jpg
- File:Angelica Agurbash - Belarus 2005.jpg
- File:Boris Novković - Croatia 2005.jpg
- File:Chiara Eurovision 2005.jpg
- File:Chiara Siracusa.jpg
- File:Constantinos Christoforou - Cyprus 2005.jpg
- File:Donna & Joe - Ireland 2005.jpg
- File:ESC 2005 Presenters.jpg
- File:ESC 2005 Returning Artists.jpg
- File:Eurovision 2005 Final - Norway - Wig Wam.jpg
- File:Feminnem - Bosnia & Herzegovina 2005.jpg
- File:Geir Rönning - Finland 2005.jpg
- File:Glennis Grace - Netherlands 2005.jpg
- File:Global.Kryner - Austria 2005.jpg
- File:Gracia Baur - Germany 2005.jpg
- File:GreenJolly - Ukraine 2005.jpg
- File:Gülseren - Turkey 2005.jpg
- File:Ivan & Delvin - Poland 2005.jpg
- File:Jakob Sveistrup - Denmark 2005.jpg
- File:Javine - United Kingdom 2005.jpg
- File:Kaffe - Bulgaria 2005.jpg
- File:Laura & The Lovers - Lithuania 2005.jpg
- File:Ledina Çelo - Albania 2005.jpg
- File:Lise Darly - Monaco 2005.jpg
- File:Luminiţa Anghel & Sistem - Romania 2005.jpg
- File:Marian van de Wal - Andorra 2005.jpg
- File:Martin Stenmarck - Sweden 2005.jpg
- File:Martin Vučić - Macedonia 2005.jpg
- File:Natalia Podolskaya - Russia 2005.jpg
- File:No Name - Serbia & Montenegro 2005.jpg
- File:NOX - Hungary 2005.jpg
- File:Nuno Resende - Belgium 2005.jpg
- File:Omar Naber - Slovenia 2005.jpg
- File:Ortal - France 2005.jpg
- File:Paparizou esc2005 final.jpg
- File:Selma - Iceland 2005.jpg
- File:Son de Sol - Spain 2005.jpg
- File:Suntribe - Estonia 2005.jpg
- File:Vanilla Ninja - Switzerland 2005 2.jpg
- File:Vanilla Ninja - Switzerland 2005.jpg
- File:Walters & Kazha - Latvia 2005.jpg
- File:Zdob şi Zdub - Moldova 2005.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kenia.obeso (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW of images which source & license are unclear.
- File:Futbol tijuana.jpg
- File:Lucha tijuana.jpg
- File:Golf tijuana.jpg
- File:Chareria.jpg
- File:Fista brava tijuana.jpg
- File:Boliche tijuana.jpg
- File:Box en tijuana.jpg
- File:Futbol americano tijuana.jpg
- File:Tiro deportivo tijuana.jpg
- File:Fisiculturismo tijuana.jpg
- File:Pentatlon dep. milit. univ.jpg
- File:Basketbol tijuana.jpg
- File:Motociclismo tijuana.jpg
- File:Softbol tijuana.jpg
- File:Beisbol tijuana.jpg
- File:Salon de la fama kenia .jpg
Funfood ␌ 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernestpierce (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder.
- File:Ernest Pierce in Pilot Episode of Glee as Leroy Berry.jpg
- File:Ernest Pierce Actor.jpg
- File:Ernest Pierce.jpg
- File:Ernest Pierce Sacred Whispers.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kevin.mogoboya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Existe un archivo de mejor calidad (formato .svg) en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_Chile GPOChile (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete pre-existing raster files when an svg is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya existe el archivo, y es de mayor calidad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_IAA-1.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep See above. Please do not nominate this file again without a different reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Existe un archivo de mejor calidad en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_Chile GPOChile (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete preexisting raster files when an svg is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya existe el archivo, y es de mayor calidad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peaje_autopista.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep See above -- we do not delete preexisting raster files when a new SVG is created. Please do not open this DR again without a different reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Se trasladará y se hará un mapa de la misma ruta GPO Morning (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. New map is nowhere to be found. –Tryphon☂ 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Se reemplazará este diagrama por el mapa del link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Ruta_A-123.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept Completely different -- one is a map, the other is a schematic. They have different route names. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern, Switzerland , That said it IS from an open source project Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose sankore.org has the notice: "Contenu du site sous licence Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)". If assumed to include the images, then the Sankoré logo, which this logo is based on, is free. Logos of FOSS projects are rarely a problem as they are often included in the distribution of the software itself. I don't know if that is the case here --moogsi(blah) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to crop this further, to remove the child. Nick Moreau (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is OK to delete, since you are the photographer and the photo is not used in any Wikimedia projects. But it would be an easier decision if you had uploaded the cropped version prior to nominating this for deletion. -Pete F (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Overwritten, original file also here: File:Vaugiraud de rosnay.jpg Funfood ␌ 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stefan4 as no permission (no permission since) MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The licence was added to Wikivoyage by User:MGA73 citing the standard licence,[4] but this only works for files uploaded on 4 June 2007 or later.[5] --Stefan4 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Further reason added by Stefan: "(uploaded in 2004, but the "standard licence" only applies since 2007[6][7])"
That is correct. But I'm sure I found a note somewhere from uploader that they used cc-by-sa or copyleft but I could not find the page now.
If you check Wikivoyage:Copyleft from 2004 it says that "Copyleft means that every single author, editor, illustrator, mapmaker, factchecker and photographer who puts their work into Wikitravel gives you the right to read, copy, print, save, download, read aloud, project, modify, email, distribute, photocopy and correct their work however you want to. ... The license we use is the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license."
There was a long discussion on Votes for deletion on en about the files.
I'll look more to try to see if I can find the note I mentioned above. --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry could not find the notice. In most cases uploader licensed the uploads with that license. In a few cases there was no license mentioned. Only excuse I can think of is that uploader never disputed that uploads was released cc-by-sa-1.0 per standards on Wikitravel or made indications that it was on purpose that the license was not mentioned on a few files. However, uploader did not like Wikitravel after it was made commercial and tried to get all files deleted there. --MGA73 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment A very long and interesting discussion. The discussion mentions both Wikitravel and Wikivoyage, but recently a bot replaced the word "Wikitravel" with the word "Wikivoyage" on the site, so it is a bit confusing when both projects are called "Wikivoyage".
- I do not see the uploader making a statement that he agreed on the CC-BY-SA licence, but he does not deny this either. Moreover, the page MediaWiki:Uploadtext did not even exist when the page was uploaded. I'm not sure what this means or what you see at Special:Upload. If there is no statement on that page saying that you agree to license the photo under CC-BY-SA or that you agree with the terms at voy:Project:Copyleft, then I would assume that you do not agree to license the photo under that licence. On the other hand, if the user had previously read the page voy:Project:Copyleft, or possibly some other page somewhere else on the project, and the user continued to contribute to the project afterwards, it could maybe mean that he had implicitly agreed to license everything as CC-BY-SA. The user did not sign at voy:Project:License upgrade.
- It also says that the uploader has contributed to Wikivoyage, so maybe the file is on Wikivoyage Shared with a clear licence statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 01:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
