Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/26
 |
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}
-1.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![30 File:"Growing Old with Chinese Pastries" screen shots.jpg](#File:"Growing_Old_with_Chinese_Pastries"_screen_shots.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
This is a file which I had uploaded for use on my Wikitravel user page. This file was moved from Wikitravel Shared, but hasn't been reviewed...in which case it would have been deleted. I'm not extremely familiar with Commons' image policy, but this type of image should be uploaded to Wikivoyage as a local file, not on commons. Since this image is only useful to me, there shouldn't be any reason to keep it on Commons & I can simply upload a newer version to Wikivoyage (and tag "keep local"). AHeneen (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment You are right to say that this falls outside Commons:Project scope. However an exception is made for user page images, see Category:User page images. So this file and the one below can be hosted by either site. It doesn't seem to make a difference either way // moogsi(blah) 06:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- English Wikivoyage deletes all files that is not used as fair use. I do not know about the other language versions of Wikivoyage. Anyway even if they allowed such files there I see no reason not to host the file on Commons. If you ever want to use it on another language version or Wikipedia or here on Commons you can do so. You can't do that if it is uploaded on Wikivoyage. --MGA73 (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't realize user images are acceptable on Commons, so I will tag this image with Template:User page image and add it to my Wikivoyage profile. In this case, I withdraw the deletion request. AHeneen (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- English Wikivoyage deletes all files that is not used as fair use. I do not know about the other language versions of Wikivoyage. Anyway even if they allowed such files there I see no reason not to host the file on Commons. If you ever want to use it on another language version or Wikipedia or here on Commons you can do so. You can't do that if it is uploaded on Wikivoyage. --MGA73 (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a file which I had uploaded for use on my Wikitravel user page. This file was moved from Wikitravel Shared, but hasn't been reviewed...in which case it would have been deleted. I'm not extremely familiar with Commons' image policy, but this type of image should be uploaded to Wikivoyage as a local file, not on commons. Since this image is only useful to me, there shouldn't be any reason to keep it on Commons & I can simply upload a newer version to Wikivoyage (and tag "keep local"). AHeneen (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Userpage images are welcome on Commons. See Category:User page images.
- English Wikivoyage deletes all files that is not used as fair use. I do not know about the other language versions of Wikivoyage. Anyway even if they allowed such files there I see no reason not to host the file on Commons. If you ever want to use it on another language version or Wikipedia or here on Commons you can do so. You can't do that if it is uploaded on Wikivoyage. --MGA73 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't realize user images are acceptable on Commons, so I will tag this image with Template:User page image and add it to my Wikivoyage profile. In this case, I withdraw the deletion request. AHeneen (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It is the company copyright and was incorrectly submitted. VL Secretary (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
1960s photograph simply claimed as "own" by uploader. The same uploader claimed as his "own" a 2011 photograph. If by some weird chance they are indeed the copyright owner of this 50-year-old image, they should use the ticketing system, but chances are that like so many other cases, this user just uses the "own" template to upload random images from the internet. Dbachmann (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted; Metadata says it originates from www.thesun.co.uk Mattythewhite (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted; taken from the Tottenham Hotspur facebook page. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted; taken from the Tottenham Hotspur facebook page. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted; Metadata says it originates from www.thesun.co.uk Mattythewhite (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No source, web resolution, uploader has uploaded copyvios before Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as blatant copy vio. Was posted to here, Reuters sources the image to "Credit: Reuters/David Mdzinarishvili" at here. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Copyright also in the Metadata for the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Escudo Moral de la Reina.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Subject is names as author and is not the uploader, so we have two problems. Who is the photographer and does he or she give permission? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The image is uploaded by the request by Lena Hades. Up to my knowledge, Lena Hades has no special photographer employed and does the pictures by herself. So, I indicate her as author. I requester the permission and got it in the following form:
Лицензия. >> Я разрешаю использование на условиях, сформулированных в файле >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.ru >> 2013.01.26, Лена Хейдиз.
>> License. >> I allow the use, at conditions formulated at >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en >> 2013.01.26, Lena Hades
Later, Lena Hades had extendet this permission to all files she loads to her account at Facebook. Perhaps I should copypast this to the description of the image. Domitori (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unless she used a self timer, which seems very unlikely given the quality of this image, the copyright for this image belongs to whoever took the picture and we must have permission from that person. All such permissions must use the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom per OTRS 2013012710004535 . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Official-looking image with questionable claim of authorship Paul_012 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Early close -- likely sock of well known copyvio-ist. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC) . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This image was never licensed or sourced at Wikivoyage; not free Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete: No source information // moogsi(blah) 08:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree: Jpatokal (talk · contribs) told me that all the wikitravel images are under CC 3.0 BY-SA as deafult, see [1]. בנימין (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader licensed it as CC 3.0-BY-SA but that doesn't mean they actually own the copyright, only that they claimed to. The image can be viewed from this page in a higher resolution. It has a credit: Rafflesia hasseltii (Ulu Belum, Perak) - Photo © Tan Chin Tong. If the uploader is the photographer, why did they not include a higher res picture or a description? // moogsi(blah) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Correcting extra bot page upload. Smallman12q (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
-1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
-1.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Correcting extra bot page upload. Smallman12q (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
-2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
-2.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan|. This building was newly built.
- File:Baku State University New Building 1.jpg
- File:Baku State University New Building 2.jpg
- File:Baku State University New Building 3.jpg
- File:Baku State University New Building 4.jpg
- File:Baku State University.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF ze-dan (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio 
(discusión) 07:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 07:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 07:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
i have uploaded a wrong file. Kiwibb (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
![08:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/26#c-Kiwibb-2013-01-26T08:36:00.000Z-File:"Growing_Old_with_Chinese_Pastries"_screen_shots.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
![00:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/01/26#c-INeverCry-2013-02-02T00:25:00.000Z-File:"Growing_Old_with_Chinese_Pastries"_screen_shots.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 09:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No Public Domain. Author Konrad Albert Koch died in 1945. See Konrad Albert Koch. Vexillum (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Monument at Cemetery for Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
[edit]
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iraq.
- File:Monument at Cemetery for Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Mass Grave for 1500 Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Cemetery - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Hilltop Monument at Cemetery to Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq - 02.jpg
- File:Mass Grave for 1500 Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Cemetery - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Monument at Mass Grave for 1500 Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Cemetery - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq - 02.jpg
- File:Closeup of Frieze Showing Omer Khawar's and Child's Bodies after 1988 Chemical Attack - House Where Khawars Home Stood - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Diorama Showing Victim of Chemical Attack (Omer Khawar) Cradling Child - Bomb Casing Authentic - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Bakhtiar Awmar Points to Himself in 1988 Photo Showing Him Collecting Bodies of Victims of 1988 Chemical Attack - Halabja Memorial - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
- File:Diorama of Victims of Saddam-Era Chemical Attack - Bomb Casings Authentic - Halabja - Kurdistan - Iraq.jpg
_Cradling_Child_-_Bomb_Casing_Authentic_-_Halabja_-_Kurdistan_-_Iraq.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
отсутствие лицезии, подозрение на нарушение авторского права Wolkodlak (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
нарушение авторских прав HHN Wolkodlak (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав HHN Wolkodlak (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Подозрение на нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As clearly indicated by the file's metadata, this is not a work of the US Federal Government, but a copyrighted, non-free stock photo by Stief & Schnare/Purestock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-free stock photo. Not created by an employee of the US Federal Government. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/copyrightpolicy.htm clearly states that some of the content on the site is non-free and that the editor should always be contacted before using content from the site. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - spam. Érico Wouters msg 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused organization chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfree file Eugeny1988 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution. Likely to be copyvio Sealle (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution, watermark. Likely to be copyvio Sealle (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution. Likely to be copyvio Sealle (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is the main subject of the photo. No Freedom of Panorama in Russia. No permission from the sculptor. Simonxag (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Vyacheslav Klykov, the sculptor died in 2006. The sculpture is still in copyright and there is no permission from his estate. --Simonxag (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author is listed as "Photo courtesy of Reuters" -- so NASA authorship is not applicable russavia (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.128.95 08:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. Some editors will call this de minimis -- I don't think that it is, but it surely deserves discussion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept General view, any architectural detail would be de minimis. Yann (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please look at the image - there's no protectable artwork/design visible. --Denniss (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept The subject is the toll plaza. The bridge is de minimis. Yann (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 19:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size image of modern-looking painting- own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - scan of modern photo - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Takabeg (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Futbolero as Fair use (non-free) and the most recent rationale was: logo
Looks ineligible for copyright to me, but on the talk page, User:Futbolero claims that it is protected by copyright in Colombia. COM:TOO has no entry for Colombia. Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The w:New York Times credited this photo to "Ahmad Masood/Reuters". But this was contradicted by the photos caption, which said: "Photographs taken from a leaflet provided by Afghan officials showed those who escaped. They were not individually identified." Since the w:Bagram Theater Internment Facility was then a DoD facility these mugshots would have been taken by employees of the DoD. So I added {{PD-USGov-Military}}.
Unless authorship by the DoD can be proven, we have to assume copyright lays with the Afghan authorities, as per the "author" claim in the image, and delete it under COM:PRP russavia (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- These individuals are wearing the orange coveralls the DoD issued to its captives. They were held in a US facility. Clarification please, are you suggesting that a team of outside photographers:
- somehow snuck into the prison;
- knocked out the US guards;
- somehow convinced these men to cooperate and hold still, while their pictures were taken;
- gave the US guards the antidote for knockout dose;
- hypnotized the US guards so they had no memory of the break in;
- snuck back out of the prison, without being detected;
- and they then published the photos, but never published the story of their amazing break-in?
- Why do you think the covert civilian photo team would risk their lives to do this?
- Sorry, it is a US prison, these ID photos are consistent with those WikiLeaks published. I don't think your scenario is credible. Let's not try to be "more Catholic than the Pope".
- Wire services and newspaper credit lines can be extremely unreliable. When it comes to respecting copyright photo editors are much less concerned with proper attribution than we are. Collages of these four official portrait photos were widely republished back in 2005. Some of these collages remain online. Here are collages where the exact same four captives' official DoD ID photos are arranged in a square and are credited to the Associated Press [2], [3]
- As I am sure everyone here is aware, merely stitching public domain photos into a single image, without adding anything creative, did not entitle either Reuters or the AP to take credit for these photos. Geo Swan (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Geo Swan. Yann (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - only link is to AFC declined 10 months ago INeverCry 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious copyright, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 23:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request - The image is out of date, and does not accurately represent the represent the Herders of Rumbek, South Sudan. The image is out of date, and beyond that extremely disrespectful to the children naked in it. They likely have given no permission to have their image circulated, and have no knowledge it is being used. It is in essence, child pornography. However, it was deemed by someone as acceptable because they are African children in an African context. The commons would not put an image for New York up, with 5 naked children in it, so, please do not do it to these children. I live here in Rumbek. The people here are intelligent and have dignity. It is not within anyone's right to take that from them, as this image does by objectifying them without their consent or knowledge. I have uploaded a current image (now on the Rumbek wiki) which I photographed in a cattle camp here in Rumbek in November 2012. This is a current representation of the people here, and represents them without objectification. This image should be removed for purposes of inaccurate representation, and objectifying those who cannot protect themselves. Sincerely, JennaB.
- Delete I disagree with just about all of this deletion request. Given the subjects' posing for the picture, the claims about their privacy being invaded are laughable. The stuff about objectification and lack of dignity are a joke: I suppose that now these people are "civilized" and eat MacDonalds :-( . But there are several naked children, some in poses which (in a glamor model) might be considered erotic and kiddy genitals are visible. That's a definite no no for the Commons. Somebody tell Jimbo that we really have found some kiddiporn and it's author is the US government! --Simonxag (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral It being outdated is an invalid argument. This is not an article about the current state of the culture, it is an image with a date in a media repository. If it is incorrectly used in an article, please address this on Wikipedia instead. The file would be usable in for example a historic context about how the culture was when the picture was taken. –Krinkletalk 03:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)- Neutral It is not clear to me whether Simonxag above is being sarcastic when he calls this "kiddiporn", but to state the obvious: Of course it is not. Nakedness is not pornographic and there is no erotism whatsoever in this picture. --Momotaro (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There certainly is a level of irony in my argument. But I believe this is where the law has taken us. Other similar modern ethnographic images with visible child genitals have been deleted. All such medical images have been deleted or just not uploaded. My non-sarcastic view is that, though we are unlikely to be prosecuted for a US government image and the thing isn't actually pornographic, we have to be very careful. The Commons has been targeted in the past and almost certainly will be again. And this particular image probably does cross the line in terms of what is currently legally allowable. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Can we please be serious here? Sarcastic and facetious comments don't do anything to help a deletion discussion. As already pointed out, the out-of-date, not-representative, disrespectful, and child-porn arguments are all either irrelevant or just nonsense. And BTW, being photographed naked doesn't mean you're not intelligent or dignified. Nominator's entire argument boils down to "I don't like this image", which is not a valid reason for deletion. Simonxag, this is nowhere near any relevant legal "line" (IANAL, but I can read the relevant Wikipedia articles). I appreciate that the nominator uploaded another image, as this is certainly the most productive response to finding images here that you don't like. Oh, and Simonxag, can you please (carefully) clarify your vote, as your original response would seem to imply {{Vote keep}}, and your second one, skewed towards {{Vote delete}}, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of existing law? - dcljr (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment My vote was (and is) to delete. This is solely because I believe the image may well fail the Dost test and certainly could be reasonably portrayed as child pornography by a "crusading" journalist. The conflicts and ironies in my response come from 2 sources:- (1) most of the deletion request's reasoning is politically correct nonsense and (2) supposed child protection has led us to a point where children's bodies and their natural healthy nakedness are rendered "pornographic". I am not happy that medical and educational images that would help children understand their own bodies must be deleted, but they must be. --Simonxag (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Okay, um... no. But to be more specific: by my reading of the Dost test, only #4 would get a "yes" for this picture — but then, it would get a yes on every single picture of a child ever taken ("Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude"). The implication in that item is that something is more likely to be found pornographic if the subject is "fully nude", but as I'm sure you well know, "simple nudity" is not grounds for calling something pornographic — and "simple nudity" is the only thing I see in this image (from the perspective of "testing" for pornography). So, I'm thinking we're quite safe in this instance. As for your hypothetical "crusading journalist", the proper response to that person would be, "You're an idiot." Finally, to address the overall tenor of your comments, you seem to be concerned mainly with the spectre of "bad publicity", but surely that possibility cannot trump the issues of "legality" and "adherence to our policies" that this discussion should be concerned with. - dcljr (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dost Test:- does the image of a minor have lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area ? A: In this case, by current standards Yes. Remember the individual questions are just guidelines and do not all need to be met.
- Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area. Yes several child genitals on view, all along the horizontal midline of the picture, some close to the centre.
- Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity. Yes 2 boys with hands behind head in glamor-model-like pose, one with hand close to and pointing at penis.
- Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child. Yes as above and the standards of dress and pose applied are likely to be American not African.
- Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude. Yes
- Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity. Maybe - the boys are doing male postures that tend to focus on their groin. They don't intend it as sexual availability, but their gestures are likely to be reinterpreted through prudish US sensibilities.
- Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. Maybe - I'd say "obviously not", but all it takes is an accusation that the photographer is a pedo and such accusations tend to stick, particularly to the innocent.
- The image might survive UK law which allows nudist family groups, but I wouldn't have it on my computer and risk finding out. But it's US law we need to worry about. --Simonxag (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The file is in use on multiple projects, and is provided by USAid, a US government agency, so any concerns of child pornography are, frankly, unwarranted. russavia (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Frihes seems a nonsense copy of Friedhof Heslach Gerd Leibrock (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" -- Commons requires a free license for all users, not just the mass media, icnluding commercial use. Therefore any image which might have this tag shuld be deleted from COmmons and the tag is useless. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- keep and reword.
- It sounds like there is a real issue, where as James says, such images aren't acceptable for Commons (and should thus be deleted).
- However I don't see this as a reason to delete the tag template, but rather one to change the implications of the template from "be careful on re-use" to "This resource is subject to deletion". Both of these are valid reasons for Commons to have a tag template, and for that template to explain and link forwards as to what the issue is. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Andy, I don't understand your reasoning. Why add {{NoFoP-Greece}} to a file when the appropriate action would be to add {{Delete}}? That simply makes one step into two. As for the more general issue of explaining FOP, we already have {{Drfop}}, which several of us use in all DRs that arise from lack of FOP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- {{Delete}} requires a reason, which this template can provide. Deletion requests with a clear rationale are processed more quickly and straightforwardly. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Andy, I don't understand your reasoning. Why add {{NoFoP-Greece}} to a file when the appropriate action would be to add {{Delete}}? That simply makes one step into two. As for the more general issue of explaining FOP, we already have {{Drfop}}, which several of us use in all DRs that arise from lack of FOP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Please carefully read the template, it's only a reason to delete if the copyrighted subject is a substantial reproduction or a focus only on the copyrighted subject. Please no copyright Paranoia here. --Denniss (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
neúplné údaje KačenkaP (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No license at all. JuTa 10:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deutsch: Die dargestellte Person macht den Hauptteil des Bildes aus. Daher wäre eines Genehmigung von ihr nach deutschem Recht erforderlich. Dies liegt hier aber nicht vor. Englisch: The person shown is the predominant part of the picture. Therefore, an approval of their under German law would be required. This is here but not before. Heubergen (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept. Argument not comprehensible. --Krd 16:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Tm as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Possible derivative work. Tm (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Torsch as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: Duplicate|File:Veiligheidsgordel logo.svg – Adrignola talk 20:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Mattia Forato.png. Froztbyte (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Curious one: my reading of the law of expropriation is that the creator should be Turkish and that they are paid compensation by the government. That doesn't apply in this case: the copyright rests with the British Crown (for the writing portion: not sure about the picture). DrKiernan (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep HM contributed to the Turkish State Memorial Visitors Book which is in the public domain in Turkey, so the {{PD-TR-Gov}} is the appropriate license Gnangarra 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. {{PD-TR}} is not valid for this image (Of course, {{PD-self}} is not valid.). The claim: The multimedia files including Presidents, national leaders and historical events are claimed to be national heritage. National heritage media files are in public domain. is groundless and for this reason {{PD-TR-Gov}} was deleted. At least, this image is not PD in Turkey. But I'm not sure whether this is PD or not in the United Kingdom. Takabeg (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United Kingdom. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth II Signature.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/PD ineligible signatures. DrKiernan (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gorywanatos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Photos and logo of musical group with questionable notability. Not used.
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 07.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 01.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 06.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 05.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 04.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 03.jpg
- File:182714 10150098363455028 4424568 n 02.jpg
- File:BANDA PERLA DE OCCIDENTE.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kusalewicz Małgorzata1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Pies w schronisku.jpeg
- File:Mięsne kostki.jpg
- File:Smakołyki dla psa.jpg
- File:1f5a2979c40a7bf6fc8f99e15d3cf14f,46,1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo in Thailand (rear).jpg
- File:2013 Proton Prevé CFE Turbo in Thailand (front).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This 2 files are my own work. Its displayed at my website here. I edited and cropped the photos to upload it for Wikipedia. Sorry, I am new.
Best regards, J!MMY Thanesniratsai
Deleted: An explicit free license at the source or COM:OTRS permission proving "own work" is needed before these can be hosted on Commons. INeverCry 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CaonaboAporte (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. No evidence of permission from sculptor.
- File:ExposicionLeobardoPerezAlcaldiaDeMedellin.JPG
- File:PiesEsculturaLeobardoPerez.JPG
- File:2.1Leobardo perez.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yo tengo todas las pruebas necesarias que prueban la autoria de las fotos y la autorizacion del escultor para la utilizacion de las imagenes. Cordialmente; CaonaboAporte (talk ·
Deleted: Please send permission to COM:OTRS. If it checks out, these files can be restored and hosted on Commons. INeverCry 00:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KingAbsinthe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:8 корп.jpg
- File:Burov2.jpg
- File:Vasilev.JPG
- File:Испытания.png
- File:Инженерный корпус.jpg
- File:Здание НИИМосстрой.jpg
- File:НИИ.png
- File:Burov.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KingAbsinthe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused media related to corporation with questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: -- George Chernilevsky talk 00:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:A Tale of Two Drops.jpg
- File:Tale of two drops.jpg
- File:Seva Shri Samman.jpg
- File:Polio Eradication Champion Award.jpg
- File:Dr Harsh Vardhan.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Novas Fotos PP (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Rodoviaria de Barbacena.png
- File:Palacio da revoluçao liberal.png
- File:Museu-da-loucura2.jpg
- File:Images boa morte barbacena.jpg
- File:Images rua 15 barbacena.jpg
- File:IFET Barbacena.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Good catch, copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 100%aviron (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional - unused text logos of non-notable website- only uploads of user
INeverCry 19:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChingKwei Kang (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
INeverCry 19:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChingKwei Kang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
INeverCry 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Belongs in Wikisource not here. Reguyla (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Changelo07 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juan Carlos Jara Burgos (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
INeverCry 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 19:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Southernseals90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Elizayoseph.jpg
- File:Kinayithoma.jpg
- File:GolanAbraham.jpg
- File:Cyriac Zecharia.jpg
- File:Eliza Yoseph.jpg
- File:Golan Abraham.jpg
INeverCry 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Journeybear (talk · contribs)
[edit]It says "Permission = OTRS", yet there is no evidence of any OTRS ticket.
- File:Jim Kweskin Jug Band 1963 Newport Folk Festival.jpg
- File:Fritz Richmond On Jug Club 47 1964.jpg
- File:Fritz Richmond On Washtub Bass.jpg
- File:Dave Van Ronk 1963 Newport Folk Festival.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to arrange for acceptable permission. I've added a link to the OTRS email exchange in progress. I don't know whether it can be resolved successfully, but I hope we could hold off deleting for a few days to see if the open issue can be resolved.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright holder has reviewed the terms and requested different terms, which will not be accepted. I've asked for reconsideration, but am not optimistic. These images should be removed ASAP. --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS ticket does not contain sufficient information to verify the release; has been waiting a month for a reply HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
All images from Adams Guns
[edit]- File:Adam's Guns Colt M1902.jpg
- File:Walther K43 8 x 57 IS Semi-Automatic Rifle 2.jpg
- File:Walther K43 8 x 57 IS Semi-Automatic Rifle 1.jpg
- File:Gewehr 98-3.jpg
- File:Gewehr 98-2.jpg
- File:Gewehr 98-1.jpg
- File:Walther G43 8 x 57 IS Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle.jpg
- File:Walther G41 8 x 57 IS Semi-Automatic Rifle.jpg
- File:FN Mauser Sporting Rifle .30-06 Springfield.jpg
The source site [4] 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. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deringer unknown adamsguns.jpg --Simonxag (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
All the images uploaded by Bpictures appear to be copyright violations. They differ in size and quality, this image has a watermark displaying the name DS-Photography or DS-Photographers and seems to have been taken during the same photo shoot as this one, colour versions of this black and white picture can be found here and here, this image can be found here, and this image is a cropped version of this one.
- File:Brigitta - gitta.JPG
- File:Yogini Brigitta Callens.png
- File:Miss Belgium Brigitta Callens.jpg
- File:Brigitta Callens.jpg
ErikvanB (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Barbarito Sanchez (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
- File:Barbaro sanchez illa.JPG
- File:Barbarito.jpg
- File:All star soneros.habana.JPG
- File:Havana Latin Soul.jpg
- File:Alfredo,caramelo,barbarito.JPG
- File:Barbarito.JPG
- File:Raidel.JPG
- File:Abel herrera y armando suarez.JPG
- File:Afro Cubans Jazz Projet.JPG
INeverCry 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - only use is on a facebook style promotional sandbox that hasn't been touched in 6+ months - I've CSD'd the sandbox as well
INeverCry 23:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
substituded by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BR-290.png Rctrojan (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ei vasta Wikimedia Commonsi reeglitele, mälestusmärgi autor teadmata. Pikorillo (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ei vasta Wikimedia Commonsi reeglitele, mälestusmärgi autor teadmata. Pikorillo (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A duplicate of this exists (ILjunction-givat-mordechai.png) with a slightly higher resolution. Furthermore, no pages link to this file and its File History is of no interest to anyone other than me in my efforts to improve the details. @Efrat (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A duplicate of this exists (ILjunction-givat-mordechaibeige.png) with a slightly higher resolution. Furthermore, no pages link to this file and its File History is of no interest to anyone other than me in my efforts to improve the details. @Efrat (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A duplicate of this exists (Jerusalem Road 21 OSM-map.PNG) with a slightly higher resolution. Furthermore, no pages link to this file and its File History is of no interest to anyone other than me in my efforts to improve the details. @Efrat (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
keine freigabe der fotografierten, jedoch nicht öffentlichen person ersichtlich. verletzung des rechts am eigenen bild. 95.157.18.206 09:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Denniss (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dublicat of .svg){kind=small}
Flor!an (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This item falls above the UK threshold of originality, which is low enough that even simple text can be copyrighted, let alone the eraser effects on the last word of this logo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I see the eraser effect not complex enough to be under copyright; although ToS in the UK can be lower than other countries. Fma12 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- You think this image is less complex that the Edge logo I linked to? Really? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, I think the "Edge" logo would have never been removed ffrom Commons under ordinary circumstances; that design consists in pure typo legend without any additional effect. But that was an exception because the England and Wales High Court pronounced about that case specifically. I don't know if there was a similar sentence over the Aviva Premiership logo. I expect other users give their opinions about this issue, if they decide it should be removed, it'll be ok for me. Fma12 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- You think this image is less complex that the Edge logo I linked to? Really? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 26 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) 06:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
1953 image. Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
[copied the following from my talk page]
- Dear Jim, there are no DRs on the photos you suggested for deletion. As Erich Bücker was my father, I know that these photographs had been taken from his very own photo album. My brother, now residing in the US, digitally refurbished them. The pictures might have been taken by a professional in the 50s being a friend of my father's. Regards from Germany. Yours Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmteaWiki (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
[copy ends] . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
1959 image. Unlikely "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
[copied the following from my talk page]
- Dear Jim, there are no DRs on the photos you suggested for deletion. As Erich Bücker was my father, I know that these photographs had been taken from his very own photo album. My brother, now residing in the US, digitally refurbished them. The pictures might have been taken by a professional in the 50s being a friend of my father's. Regards from Germany. Yours Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmteaWiki (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
[copy ends] . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ersetzt nach Neubeabeitung! Bitte löschen! Rudolf Eberhard Neuber (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's an older, less well-named version of File:Wikipedia reftoolbar dependency graph.svg. I'm the original creator and uploader of both images. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why?? --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged with {{NoFoP-Greece}}, no need to delete this image (but focus on bridge will be subject to deletion) Denniss (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [5]. Yann (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=924540009#File:Rio_Antirio_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Image fails COM:FOP#Greece Veggies (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, no FoP issues here Denniss (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this was closed as a Speedy close without the opportunity for discussion. There is a clear issue -- there is no FOP in Greece. While in some countries, including the USA, bridges are not architecture, and therefore do not have a copyright, in many others, including France, they are and do have a copyright. As far as I know, we do not know whether or not they have copyrights in Greece, therefore COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever else this cannot and should not be closed speedily. The issue needs input/discussion the establish principles. --Herby talk thyme 17:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)