Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.PNG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
infringement of copyright がりがりぼーん (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzrIgacADU --iwaim (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Not the real logo, therefore no scope. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.flickr.com/photos/masrerico/6969460838/ -- Kaganer (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio rubin16 (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
copyvio - cropped version of http://www.flickr.com/photos/darionet/4816657579 -- Kaganer (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio rubin16 (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
copyvio - cropped version of http://www.flickr.com/photos/63807864@N00/2142433129/ (CC-BY-NC), no source provided. -- Kaganer (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio rubin16 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - a five-year-old should not be posting his photo on the Internet. Used in short autobio article deleted from en:wp. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - a five-year-old should not be posting his photo on the Internet. Used in short autobio article deleted from en:wp. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. Most likely uploader's own picture. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Used on en:wp in a string of hoax articles about a supposed billionnaire. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Uploader FBrandford (talk · contribs) is creating uncredited, modified images, and fake information on Wikipedia: see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files by FBrandford as of 2013-02-03 and en:User talk:FBrandford. This particular file is a cropped version of copyrighted id:Berkas:George Rudy.jpg in violation of the license terms at id:Wikipedia:Permintaan izin/kapanlagi.com (requiring attribution or logo to appear). This appears to actually be Indonesian martial artist and movie actor George Rudy, birth name Tjwan Hien, born in 1954. --Closeapple (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, user blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Arcadi Mas i Fondevila - Reunió del capítol del Toisó d'Or en el cor de la catedral de Barcelona.jpg
[edit]
Also File:Arcadi Mas i Fontdevila- Figura- 1679.JPG. Arcadi Mas i Fondevila was a Spanish artist who died in 1934, and Spain has 80 pma for artists dead before 1987, so these works will not be PD in Spain until 2015. They can be uploaded to Wikilivres. Without a date I'm not sure if they can be uploaded to English Wikipedia. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- This work has been uploaded via a collaboration with the museum holder, who has the reproduction rights of this painting. Please keep it on Commons.--Kippelboy (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Generally, the rights to a work are not owned by the entity who owns the physical painting (like a gallery or museum) but by the original artist and/or their heirs. It is possible for the copyright holder to transfer copyright to another entity, but for fine art this would not generally be the museum, but rather some kind of rights management foundation. Such organizations almost never release their works under a free license. If we do have permission from the actual copyright holder(s) of the work, not just the owner of the paintings, their license statement needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as described at COM:OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
I don't want it on my page. 72.92.70.30 00:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid DR reason given. INeverCry 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The file appears in several different locations on the Internet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/capital%20kings
- http://www.jambase.com/Artists/96332/Capital-Kings/Bio
- http://www.enlacemusical.com/noticias/noticias-anglo/capital-kings-prepara-su-disco-debut/ This one in particular is from an article posted two weeks before it was uploaded to the commons.
- Not sure it is the property of the person who uploaded it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
"Soperutano" is an spanish word to qualify someone as dumb or silly. It's just an image to harass the boy in the photo. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 01:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary work that never came to fruition, and now to be pitched. File is globally unused and not a member of any category. Notuncurious (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This map is original research (my own), and was not intended to be used. It is not used anywhere in wikipedia, and it is not a member of any category. Notuncurious (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Available in many places on the Internet e.g aand also watermark, likely copyvio Morning ☼ (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Logo of the Cairo Metro, which in my view DOES meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. ErikvanB (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This rendition is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 05:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
VI's images can't be here. Fry1989 eh? 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Si nadie las pone quien lo hace, esta imagen es una imagen muy útil al ser el escudo de un país.
Deleted: INeverCry 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of the Christian Democrat Party of Chile.svg Fry1989 eh? 06:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 06:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 06:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 06:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 06:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This photo is not suitable for uploading onto WikiCommons. I was carelessly uploaded without noticing it's WikiCommons instead of my local Wikipedia. SElefant (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, found on some webpages, e.g. here [[1]] Funfood ␌ 07:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of some webpage. User has tendency of uploading copyrighted files —Bill william comptonTalk 08:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of some webpage. All the uploads of this user are copyvios. —Bill william comptonTalk 08:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Blurred to the point of uselessness. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Advertising Funfood ␌ 08:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Movie screenshot. Funfood ␌ 08:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal, unused image. Single upload for muser, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 08:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone found this photo on Flickr and copied it onto Wikimedia Commons. It was published on Flickr with "All Rights Reserved". The photographer's name (Tom-Egil Jenssen) is not given here, and the uploader has stated "own work". Guaca (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Including non-free image (All Rights Reserved). It was taken by Darriuss Royce on August 17, 2009. Takabeg (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The frescos in the church are work of Tone Kralj (1900-1975). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, the photo is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The paintings in the church are work of Tone Kralj (1900-1975). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, the photo is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to Anthrocivitas on 26 September 2010 by Storm. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Missing information about the draughtsman and the year of his death. The written year of creation is incorrect. The oldest known depiction of F. Prešeren was a portrait made in 1850.[2] The dLib puts it in the 19?, which means that the creator could easily still be alive after 1945 (i.e. the image could easily still be copyrighted). It's more believable that the image was made in 1949. Eleassar (t/p) 11:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com on 7 May 2012 by Azer_Akhundov (Source: president.az). There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com on 13 June 2011 by Galandar. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was used in Live Journal on 8 December 2011. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was used in Az Cookbook on 12 July 2008. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was used in livejournal.com on 22 November 2011. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com on 3 October 2011 by Xtreminal. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Postcard from 1989 can not be in public domain. The uploader is not the author nor the copyright holder of the work. Rlevente (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to 500px.com on 13 August 2011 by Tair Abdullayev. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-educational, low resolution, missing author information 129.15.131.90 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a logo, so it is either a derivative work of someone else's work or out of scope.
The logo looks a bit complex, so I'm not convinced that it is below the threshold of originality in both the United States and the source country. Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Its the official logo from samepage.io TheKarpati (talk)
- Comment - this image was originally in use at w:Samepage. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This image is not "own work" This is a Copyright violation. Ferbr1 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, just a moment! Ferbr1 (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really know if the image is sufficient for a copyright; in any case, the printing house Laia dissapeared about 30 years ago.--Roferbia (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Two different issues: the first one would be related to eligibility for copyright. That is, whether the artwork surpasses the threshold of originality. The second one relates to the ownership of the copyright. Even if the printing house has disappeared, its assets were, at a given time, transferred to another entity as part of the creditor's meeting. These would be the new owners of the copyright. Therefore, I'd say Delete --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment El autor de la portada es Enric Statue. Voy a contactarlo para ver si nos autoriza a usar su trabajo. Está la opción de que me envíe la autorización standard en la que autoriza el uso, incluso comercial, de su material, o bien esa autorización, OTRS, que no sé cómo funciona. Ferbr1 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC) PD) si alguien traduce mi comentario al inglés, lo agradecería.
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Author is purportedly a college, hence it should be asumed that they have the copyright and therefore this cannot be uploaded under CC by an anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
the Internet Archive is not the author of the Wilhelm Scream and did not have the right to label it Public Domain DS (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The recording is not old enough, and the archive.org page doesn't say anything to back up its claim that it is public domain. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep Please, don't delete this file. There is an article that talks about the Wilhelm Scream, and I don't want the file deleted. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 17:06, 4 February, 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops. Sorry for not logging in earlier. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 17:20, 4 February, 2013 (UTC)
- If it's used in an article on enwiki, then a copy can be kept on enwiki as fair use. Commons is for free content. This is not free content. DS (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops. Sorry for not logging in earlier. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 17:20, 4 February, 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unknown individual, appears to be a personal photograph, unused. No evidence of permission and complaint via OTRS 2013013010015679 QU TalkQu 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This was one of a batch of political images uploaded by this user under free license with claim that they were his own work. I was able to find previously published sources for all of the others, but not this one. There's no plausible reason to believe that this is his work and that he owns right to it. Without accurate source information, copyright cannot be determined. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused/replaceable by File:1-4-Dioxane.svg in same format, but this one here has strange bond-widths and corners DMacks (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient quality. --Leyo 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Small and pixelated, have File:1 3-dioxane.svg as a fine replacement (could easily re-export a .png at any size in good quality if anyone has a need). DMacks (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think that there will be a need, because even the alignment is the same. --Leyo 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Harsh 2580 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused photo from Facebook. Appears to be outside of Commons' project scope. No explanation as to why the Commons uploader, who apparently just found the photo on Facebook, would be the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The date of origin "date=2010-10-22" is not correct and obviously backdated. Rainer Maria Woelki has been appointed Archbishop of Berlin only on 2nd of July, 2011 and was elected Cardinal on 18th of February, 2012. In October, 2010, nobody knew he would be sent to Berlin. Forgery? Der wahre Jakob (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sourced with tse.jus.br = en:Superior Electoral Court of Brazil = no free licence availabe + "Dados fornecidos pelo candidato no processo de registro de candidaturas (...)" = Data provided by the candidate during registration process = permission from "Vadinho Baião" needed. Gunnex (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No conceivable educational purpose; instead is only useful as a how-to and/or as a direct advocacy of a course of action. Commons is not a general purpose webhosting service. 208.81.184.4 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No conceivable educational purpose; instead is only useful as a how-to and/or as a direct advocacy of a course of action. Commons is not a general purpose webhosting service. 208.81.184.4 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 16:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 16:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No EXIF, small size. Transferred from ro.wp where the original uploader did not even claim own work, or give any hint as to the licensing, other than a GFDL template, added possibly without his interaction. —Andrei S. Talk 16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File does not have sufficient OTRS clearance to prove copyright release Werieth (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
These building of Marcello Piacentini (died 19 May 1960) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Dega180 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC) v
- Delete --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Oppose - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as FOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
2013 magazine Kippelboy (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Named source is not the correct source and therefor not the one to license the use of this file. The correct source (www.koninklijkhuis.nl) states here that the use of all their files is limited and there's no mentioning of any license. EvilFreD overleg 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - The claimed license is only valid for pictures on the website rijksoverheid.nl but that doesn't match the site of the claimed source, so there is no proof this picture has a free license. - Robotje (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Question Per this notice, "The photographs may be downloaded for private use and for non-commercial, educational purposes or for editorial purposes by the media" (emphasis mine). So I ask, isn't an encyclopedia considered a part of the media? This image is certainly being used by us for editorial purposes. Senator2029 13:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but Commons is not. Commons can be used to store free media that can be used in projects like Wikipedia. If there are restrictions like non-commercial use only or education use only then such media are not free enough (see Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable licence terms). - Robotje (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File has been deleted before for unclear copyright; image is from book. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Transferfunction.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Transfunc.jpg User:Bnland does not know if he has copyright. Glrx (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File has been deleted before for unclear copyright; image is from book. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sfericpulse.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sfericwaveform.jpg User:Bnland does not know if he has copyright. Glrx (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I really have doubts about the uploader owning the legal rights to this college's logo. Kyores (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- EDIT: Checking the user's other uploads, there's plenty of other Basingstoke College of Technology related images, mostly a really, really low resolution which leads me to think they've just uploaded some random thumbnails found somewhere and are not actually the copyright holder at all. Kyores (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a Photoshopped derivative of a photograph of a cosplayer. Tineye shows the original existed at noobgibs.com (site no longer exists, however). The source and description state that the picture was modified by the uploader, but don't state anything about the photographer or the licensing for the original photo. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Uploader claims to be the subject, who is apparently notable. Looks like a semi-professional shot to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: It could be a possibility that the photographer transferred the copyright to Erwin Kiennast. Kyores (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if so, we'd need confirmation of that and that the uploader was indeed Mr Kiennast. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems to contain a copyright watermark Torsch (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably out of scope, claim of own work doesn't jive with facebook link. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uploader as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Reason : No FOP in France
Converted by me to DR, as it is somewhat questionable whether this building is above the threshold of originality and thereby copyrightable at all. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- This town hall is obviously not a nice monument, but it's as original, imo, as a table cloth or a nail clipper. Moreover, the picture is not really good and will be easily forgotten by contributors ! So, don't be afraid to delete. -- I'm very sorry to ask for the deletion of many pictures I uploaded with great care, even if they're not really fine photographs... but I learned a lot about non-fop in France during the last few month. The law may be criticized but it must be applied first. -- Thanks in advance. JLPC (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing original. France has a high threshold for architecture. Yann (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is within our scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Advertising --moogsi (blah) 22:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Because the author of this work Aydın Aşkan is still alive. Acording to the article 40 of the Turkish copyright law (English text) is related only with works settled on umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlar （public road, street, and square. This artwork is settled in Aşiyan Park, neither in road, street, nor in square. So his rights should be protected. Takabeg (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment These are modern artworks. But nobody mentioned modern artworks at "nonsense". Takabeg (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. You do not understand what's going on. For example, Eiffel Tower is also modern artworks and also French law prohibits the publication of this BUT Wikimedia is not France, servers of Wikimedia not lies in France and Wikimedia not need comply with French law. This is international project, not French. In Spain, Poland, Australia and in 100 other countries, French law not applicable. To pictures of France you can add a note about FOP, and do not delete files. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is permanently placed in a public park! Saying that a public park is not a street or a square is not a valid reasoning to delete these files. You cannot just comment on a law only "literally", you need to see the "reasoning & sense" of the law as well. This is a globally accepted law practice: en:Letter and spirit of the law & en:Purposive approach. In this specific case, the law is actually talking about art work in public places. I have checked with a lawyer and got the same comment. İyivikiler... ho? ni! 07:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Covered by FOP. Sculptures permanently situated in a public place. Yann (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete, pdf biography out of scope Traumrune (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The article 40. of the Turkish copyright allows "FoP" only for works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares. Those are modern artworks which are settled in SantralIstanbul (Category:Santral Istanbul).
- File:Centralistanbul Boats philippelemoine.jpg
- File:Santral Istanbul 1090119 1090141.jpg
- File:Santral istanbul 1090431 1090434.jpg
- File:Santral istanbul ext1.JPG
- File:Santral istanbul ext2.JPG
- File:Sunset at Santral Istanbul.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment These are modern artworks. But nobody mentioned modern artworks at "nonsense". Takabeg (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. You do not understand what's going on. For example, Eiffel Tower is also modern artworks and also French law prohibits the publication of this BUT Wikimedia is not France, servers of Wikimedia not lies in France and Wikimedia not need comply with French law. This is international project, not French. In Spain, Poland, Australia and in 100 other countries, French law not applicable. To pictures of France you can add a note about FOP, and do not delete files. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: 1, 4, 5, and 6 are "permanently placed" in a public area. They are in a university campus which is also open to people who are not students. This area is also a public open air concert & event venue. You cannot just comment on a law only "literally", you need to see the "reasoning & sense" of the law as well. This is a globally accepted law practice: en:Letter and spirit of the law & en:Purposive approach. In this specific case, the law is actually talking about art work in public places. I have checked with a lawyer and got the same comment. İyivikiler... ho? ni! 06:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: The subjects are just part of the interior and exterior shots in that place. If you are trying to be strict about these kind of shots please suggest blurring or pixelating those parts of picturesinstead of DR. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Covered by FOP. Sculptures and buildings permanently situated in a public place, except File:Santral Istanbul 1090119 1090141.jpg which is original and in interior. For File:Santral istanbul 1090431 1090434.jpg, I don't see what could get a copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
person not notable, article deleted in de-wp Hyperdieter (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Keine Beschreibung, kann nicht eingeordnet werden. 84.58.190.90 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Keine Beschreibung, kann nicht eingeordnet werden. 84.58.190.90 23:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of [3] ([4]) HF (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.hillresortsinindia.com/images/kotagiri/nilgiri-hills.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Art. 40. of the Turkish copyright allows "FoP" only for works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares.
- File:Lifli Oda.jpg
- File:BecomingIstanbul.jpg
- File:Türbülanslı Topolojiler.jpg
- File:BecomingIstanbul.jpg
- File:Turcut Cansever.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment These are modern artworks. But nobody mentioned modern artworks at "nonsense". Takabeg (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. You do not understand what's going on. For example, Eiffel Tower is also modern artworks and also French law prohibits the publication of this BUT Wikimedia is not France, servers of Wikimedia not lies in France and Wikimedia not need comply with French law. This is international project, not French. In Spain, Poland, Australia and in 100 other countries, French law not applicable. To pictures of France you can add a note about FOP, and do not delete files. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Outside of COM:SCOPE: commons is not facebook. Personal file of user without other contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Didym. whym (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Upload with the wrong copyright status. Sorry! Ink sym (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This might be {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The right part isnt text. JuTa 18:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is really a good idea to use speedy deletion if it is suspected that a Finnish photo is above the threshold of originality. This is a complex matter and could easily be misunderstood, so it is better to handle questions about the threshold of originality for photos in a normal deletion discussion. Stefan4 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Капельно-пленочный ороситель БНС 5.5.5..JPG Fil.848 (talk) 10:28, 31 января 2013 года (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by John saloz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images, out of COM:PS.
Funfood ␌ 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarfrazkhan4544 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 k.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 j.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan mama.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544v.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544khan.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 2.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544@mom.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544&mom.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544& mom.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 x.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 w.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 t.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 sister 2.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 sister.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 sist.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 sagufta.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 process control.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 po.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 pic.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 p.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 nind.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 nilu.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 nani1.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 n.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 mom sis.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 mama.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 mani2.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 main.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 lk.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 m.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 lion.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 kaular2.jpg
- File:Sarfrazkhan4544 kaular.jpg
- File:Sarfrakhan4544.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jalabespierre (talk · contribs)
[edit]No description, no categories for more than one year. Thus an encyclopedic use of this file is hardly possible.
- File:Tschulwiki5.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki7.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki6.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki4.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki3.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki2.jpg
- File:Tschulwiki1.jpg
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Trieste incinerator
[edit]This building appears to be a modern building, which would still be copyrighted under Italy's 70 years pma copyright duration. (The architect would have needed to have died prior to 1943 for this to be public domain, which seems unlikely based on the architectural style.) Because Italy has no Freedom of Panorama, photos of buildings still under copyright are not allowed.
- File:Termovalorizzatore di Trieste 1.JPG
- File:Termovalorizzatore di Trieste 2.JPG
- File:Termovalorizzatore di Trieste 3.JPG
cmadler (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is an industrial building, no "architectural style" applies. No "architects" are involved in the design of industrial building, just civil engineers. --Accurimbono (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If that were true, incinerators would follow generally the same plan and have a generally similar appearance (with obvious adjustments for size and site geography). But this is not at all the case; compare this building in what seems to me to be a modernism style (broadly -- speaking more specifically I see some elements of brutalism) to others such as File:Teesside wte.JPG (perhaps postmodern), File:Hayler's End Incinerator - geograph.org.uk - 5441.jpg (neo-eclectic), and File:Marchwood Incinerator - geograph.org.uk - 13431.jpg (post-modern futurism, maybe, or deconstructivist). Regardless of whether designed by an architect or an engineer, there are clearly creative decisions that went into this work which render it a copyrightable work. cmadler (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The author? --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have been unable to find information about the author/architect/engineer who designed this or about the year of construction. Going by the appearance, it appears to have been designed within the last 70 years -- if I had to guess, I might say 1960s. If you can find any further information about this building, I welcome it, particularly if you can show that the images can be kept. cmadler (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I found 1 and 2, only Italian, Google translator may be helpful. --Accurimbono (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have been unable to find information about the author/architect/engineer who designed this or about the year of construction. Going by the appearance, it appears to have been designed within the last 70 years -- if I had to guess, I might say 1960s. If you can find any further information about this building, I welcome it, particularly if you can show that the images can be kept. cmadler (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Only a set of parallelepipeds of concrete, some of which not even painted, and a chimney, they not exceed the threshold of originality. Maybe there are incinerator or industrial building made with artistic value, but not this one. --Yoggysot (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Industrial buildings, purely functional, doesn't exceed the threshold of originality, therefore no copyright. Yann (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Maharaja Agrasen College Front profile.jpg
- File:Maharaja Agrasen College Building.jpg
- File:Maharaja Agrasen College Campus.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Various promotional shots of the same subject, doubtful claim of own work. The other opload of this user was previously nominated
- File:Ellen in Movie'硬漢'- 劇照.jpg
- File:Ellen with Anthony Wong(黃秋生) 2007.jpg
- File:Ellen in shooting Movie ~ 2007.jpg
- File:Ellen in Movie " Dragon Blood " 2007.jpg
_2007.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
moogsi (blah) 16:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Commons screenshots.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arapublications (talk · contribs)
[edit]Satellite images/ maps, documents. No evidence of permissions.
- File:2013：中缅天然气管道.JPG
- File:2013：中缅原油管道.JPG
- File:2013：中国-中亚天然气管道走向图.JPG
- File:十二五期间中国的煤层气藏和抽采作业区名单（英文）.jpg
- File:中国的常规天然气发电厂名单（英文）.jpg
- File:中国的煤层气藏和抽采作业区名单（英文）.jpg
- File:中国的天然气管道项目名单（英文）.jpg
- File:中国天然气管道网络分布图.JPG
- File:中国天然气发电厂分布图.jpg
- File:中国页岩富集区和页岩气开采示范区分布图.jpg
- File:China's Small-Scale Natural Gas Liquefaction Plants.jpg
- File:Chunxiao Gasfields.jpg
- File:China's Natural Gas Pipelines.JPG
- File:China's Natural Gas Power Plants.jpg
- File:中国压缩天然气供气母站分布图.JPG
- File:中俄原油管道.jpg
- File:中国液化天然气装置分布图.jpg
- File:中国LNG接收站分布图.JPG
- File:China's Shale Gas Map.jpg
- File:China's LNG Terminals.JPG
- File:West-East Natural Gas Pipelines.JPG
- File:中国西气东输系统管网分布图.jpg
- File:Designshow04.JPG
- File:Chinanaturalgasmapdesignshow.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The golden man (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of post cards and photos from Internet, not own work.
- File:Gallery66.jpg
- File:Blow sky.jpg
- File:Angel !!..jpg
- File:Rihanna !!.jpg
- File:Very beautefaul!!.jpg
- File:Broken angel.jpg
- File:Very lovley!!.png
- File:Black flower.jpg
- File:Angel !!.jpg
- File:Kissing!!.jpg
- File:Bleau water.jpg
- File:Barbie angel.jpg
- File:Forets wiki.jpg
- File:Lovley angel.jpg
- File:Tour eiffel.png
- File:Merlyn monroe.jpg
- File:Mind humain.jpg
- File:Wikimedia!.jpg
- File:Red heart!.jpg
- File:Zayn malik!.png
- File:Zayn malik!.jpg
- File:Zayn malik.JPG
- File:713x267 22.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of advertisement, not own work.
- File:AkibagChokoreeto.jpg
- File:AkibagBugdroid.png
- File:AkibagKuro.jpg
- File:AkibagOnglet.jpg
- File:AkibagOuvert.jpg
- File:AkibagElastique.jpg
- File:Akibag1.jpg
- File:AkibagArriere.jpg
- File:AkibagNetbook.jpg
- File:AkibagKogata.jpg
- File:AkibagOogata.jpg
- File:AkibagNakoudo.png
- File:Akibag collection2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This building of Gio Ponti (died in 1979) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. See also this and this deletion request. Dega180 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC) </noinclude>
- Delete --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Oppose - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as FOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [5]. Yann (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Files about Palazzo Gualino
[edit]This building of Gino Levi-Montalcini (died 29 November 1974) and Giuseppe Pagano Pogatschnig (died 22 April 1945) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. I request to delete these files
--Dega180 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Oppose - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as FOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files about Stadio Giuseppe Meazza
[edit]This building of Ulisse Stacchini (died in 1947) and renovated in 1990 with a proget of Giancarlo Ragazzi (who still living) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption (for interior and exterior). I request to delete these files:
- File:219579.jpg
- File:219580.jpg
File:AC Milan dressing room.jpgFile:Colonna tetto sansiro.jpg- File:Curva Interista.JPG
- File:Il terzo anello e il tetto di sansiro da fuori.jpg
File:Interno spogliatoio poltrone.jpgFile:Interno spogliatoio.jpg- File:MilanoSanSiro02.JPG
- File:Milano stadio Meazza vista esterna.jpg
- File:PAOLO009.jpg
- File:PAOLO011.jpg
- File:PAOLO103.jpg
File:Poltrone spogliatoio milan sansiro.jpg- File:S.Siro esterno.jpg
- File:San Siro - cropped.jpg
- File:San Siro Giuseppe Meazza - La cattedrale del calcio - soccer cathedral.jpg
- File:San Siro stadium in Milan-feve.jpg
- File:San Siro vue extérieur.JPG
- File:San Siro.jpg
- File:San Siro1.JPG
- File:San Siro2.JPG
- File:Sansirbici.JPG
- File:Sansiro in the sky.jpg
- File:Sansiro rampe e scale.jpg
- File:Sansiro188.JPG
- File:Stadio Giuseppe Meazza a Milano DSC00011.JPG
- File:Stadio SanSiro Gate 14.jpg
File:Tavolo logo milan nel spogliatoio.jpg- File:The San Siro Sunshine.JPG
- File:Way to San Siro.jpg
--Dega180 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment a particular building (a column -.-) and a table or a chair in the locker room of the football team do you think Milan are attributable to the architect and within the FOP? but please, the dressing of milan mostly with the stadium has nothing to do. This thing is getting ridiculous FOP --Pava (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Columns of the stadio are the most original objects of San Siro with their particular spiral shape. The logo of Milan is under copyright.--Dega180 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- copyright and FOP are two different things, you can not open a discussion on a topic for photos that violate other issues. The photo depicts only a detail ( 3 ramps) of a component (column) of the building, is very hazardous insert in the case that image FOP. About logos, is the use which is made that the allegedly infringing copyright if I use that picture of the table on page milan there is no violation. Also, if the table the logo is clearly visible in the seats is only a small part of the whole, still less justified all violations --Pava (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I deleted from the list, photos that contain only the logo of Milan. They will be proposed for deletion in another deletion request.--Dega180 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- i have delete from the list AC Milan dressing room.jpg --Pava (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I deleted from the list, photos that contain only the logo of Milan. They will be proposed for deletion in another deletion request.--Dega180 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- copyright and FOP are two different things, you can not open a discussion on a topic for photos that violate other issues. The photo depicts only a detail ( 3 ramps) of a component (column) of the building, is very hazardous insert in the case that image FOP. About logos, is the use which is made that the allegedly infringing copyright if I use that picture of the table on page milan there is no violation. Also, if the table the logo is clearly visible in the seats is only a small part of the whole, still less justified all violations --Pava (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Columns of the stadio are the most original objects of San Siro with their particular spiral shape. The logo of Milan is under copyright.--Dega180 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as co-requester. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Oppose - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as FOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- But we want to respect the right of USA and the right of the country where the picture is taken.--dega180 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep/Oppose - nonsense. You not allowed to delete files, file was only cropped from original file which exist. Kolombus (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which file was copped from original file? In the list there is no cropped file.--dega180 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The user Kolombus is the same of Subtropical-man. He expresses double opinion. Any error? --Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which file was copped from original file? In the list there is no cropped file.--dega180 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Logos of Milan AC are DM -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gyeongju Tower
[edit]Unfortunately, Kyŏngju Tower is from 2007. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Some of the images have OTRS permission, but the OTRS tickets only contain permission from the photographers and not from the architect.
- File:2007-Korea-Gyeongju Tower-01.jpg
- File:Gyeongju Tower night.JPG
- File:Gyeongju Tower.JPG
- File:Gyeongju Tower.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-01.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-A view from the botton-01.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-Front view-01.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-Inside-01.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-Side view-01.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-Side view-02.jpg
- File:Korea-Gyeongju Tower-Under view-01.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Top.imagine.secret (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BMG Rights Spain (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images. Notice also the uploader's username is the name of a company.
- File:The Noises (3).jpg
- File:The Noises Portada.jpg
- File:Silvina Magari (12).jpg
- File:Silvina Magari Portada.jpg
- File:Garaje Jack Portada.jpg
- File:Garaje Jack (21).jpg
- File:El Hombre Rana Portada.jpg
- File:El Hombre Rana (6).jpg
- File:Dry Martina (3).jpg
- File:Portada Momento Perfecto.jpg
- File:Cyan portada.jpg
- File:Chocolata (1).jpg
- File:Chocolata portada.jpg
- File:Celeste Portada.jpg
- File:Carlos Izaga.jpg
- File:Alis (10).jpg
- File:Alis portada.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not Gorazde flag. Smooth_O (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also this coat or arms: File:Grb Gorazde 2011.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Violation du droit d'auteur Omondi (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment C'est un image de 1940. Il pourrait être hors de droits. Je dirais plus que le problème est l'absence d'information sur la source.--HrAd (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Bien que la source soit renseignée (Bibliothèque Ulysse Capitaine Liège), rien n'indique que l'auteur (Inconnu) soit mort depuis plus de 70 ans et rien ne prouve que le propriétaire de l'image (Bibliothèque Ulysse Capitaine Liège) consente à sa diffusion. La license Creative Commons invoquée est inadéquate et trompeuse.--Omondi (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This image appears to be taken by Heinrich Hoffmann, who died in Germany in 1957. A large number of his photos were seized by the U.S. after WWII and are held by NARA, and considered Public Domain. Would need to find out if this is one of them --moogsi (blah) 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sent an email to Spaarnestad Photo on the offchance they know something --moogsi (blah) 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Public domain in the U.S., not in the country of origin. IIRC, I think we don't keep Hoffmann's photos from the U.S. collections, unless they were also published before 1923 or released by the copyright owner or by a source accepted on Commons as an authorized licensor, such as the Bundesarchiv. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Asclepias --moogsi (blah) 21:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This map is replaced by the better one: Luwiya.svg and therefore no longer needed al-Qamar (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico, Mercy11 (talk · contribs) wrote that this photo comes from a camera confiscated by the US government. I would assume that the US government only confiscated the physical camera and its memory cards and not the intellectual property rights associated with the photos. In either case, {{PD-USGov}} only applies to works made by the US government. If it was made by someone else, then the work is protected by copyright even if the US government might be the copyright holder.
I'm not sure what Mercy11 (talk · contribs) is basing the statement on. The source states that pornographic photos were found on a camera belonging to the subject of the photo. This photo is obviously not pornographic, but it is possible that there might have been non-pornographic photos in the same camera.
The first three photos at https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/eric-justin-toth/view (and possibly also the last one) seem to have been taken in a private place, possibly by a friend of the person. This may mean that the photos weren't taken by the US government. Stefan4 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that the image was taken by the FBI as asserted in the license. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eric Justin Toth 2013.jpg. It may also be useful to see this sockpuppet investigation on en.wp regarding the uploader. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by PierreSelim as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of a copyrighted logo (twitter) INeverCry 16:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is the thought process that the bird in this file is more distinct and therefore not simply able to be tagged as a trademarked image - vs. their old "t" icon that did allow for File:112tw.png, etc.? --Varnent (talk)(COI) 04:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by PierreSelim as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of a copyrighted logo (twitter) INeverCry 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Possible de minimis, I would like a second opinion as this file would be highly useful (the only one that complies with Twitter's brand identity guidelines which recently forbade the 'T' logo) —Mono 03:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JLPC as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Reason : No FOP in FranceConverted by me to DR, as it is somewhat questionable whether this monument is above the threshold of originality and thereby copyrightable at all. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a gorgeous monument but the sculptor died in 1956, i. e., according to the French law, we'll have to wait until 2026 to be allowed to upload this picture (or, most probably, another one !) on Commons. No problem : delete ! Thanks in advance. -- JLPC (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Discovery globe is copyrighted, is it not? Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Copyright the Earth, MwaaHAHahAHaHAhaHAha, ...
- Na, it's good, we have way too many free Earths on commons. Penyulap ☏ 07:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Proust U. S. French language copyrights
[edit]Transfer to Wikilivres
[edit]Publication date for this book is 1923. Published in compliance with notice and renewal formalities and presumably with other US formalities. Therefore, is not in public domain in the United States until 2018 and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. - ResidentScholar (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Publication date for this book is 1923. Published in compliance with notice and renewal formalities and presumably with other US formalities. Therefore, is not in public domain in the United States until 2018 and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. - ResidentScholar (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Publication date for this book is 1925. Published in compliance with notice and renewal formalities and presumably with other US formalities. Therefore, is not in public domain in the United States until 2020 and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. ResidentScholar (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Publication date for this book is 1927. Published in compliance with notice and renewal formalities and presumably with other US formalities. Therefore, is not in public domain in the United States until 2022 and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. ResidentScholar (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Publication date for this book is 1927. Published in compliance with notice and renewal formalities and presumably with other US formalities. Therefore, is not in public domain in the United States until 2022 and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. ResidentScholar (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are the links to the notification and renewal records in the United States of the three volumes:
La Prisonnière
Albertine disparue
Le Temps retrouvé.
User:Dcoetzee expressed his considerate willingness to help with the transfers. ResidentScholar (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've got a lot of questions, to begin :
- when exactly and where were this book published ? For example, the first one File:Proust - La Prisonnière, tome 1.djvu is said to be published in 1919 according to the source (Internet Archive, which is under the US law) but in the 8th page it's witten « Copyright by Gaston Gallimard. Paris 1923. » (thought, it's probably Internet Archive who is wrong…) And when was it first published in the US ? (if it was…)
- I labeled each of them: The exact times of copyright are at those three links. Zephyrus said it was 1919: He was the one who uploaded the book. You will have to ask him, when it clearly says 1923 in the book. If you go to Internet Archive now, these three volumes are gone. These books must have been published in the United States, or why else would they have been copyrighted in that country?
- how does copyright renewal works ? Is it on the text in general or on a specific edition ?
- As far as I know all the editions are the same textually, only the typography would be different. It would be the same copyright for all editions, but if there were later additions those additions themselves would have to be copyrighted.
- True but is there any editions before 1923? (doesn't seems so but it should be check)
- As far as I know all the editions are the same textually, only the typography would be different. It would be the same copyright for all editions, but if there were later additions those additions themselves would have to be copyrighted.
- is there something specific about the posthumous works in the US ? (Marcel Proust died in 1922)
- Only if there is not compliance with U.S. formalities. But this is one of the very few French language books that can be assumed to be in compliance.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also consider that when the Viking and Penguin British translations were published in the United States, they only published the first four of seven volumes, not the last three volumes here in question. But I see you know that as you altered the English Wikipedia page which contains that information six minutes after writing here. When were you going to share that information? ResidentScholar (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn’t really « altered the English Wikipedia », I asked for sources. It's an usual process on the wikipedias, it could help to see more clearly here (for instance there is an inconsistency on w:In Search of Lost Time, it’s write “The remaining volumes are scheduled to come out in 2018.” but on this RfD it’s write that 2020 and 2022 ; aren’t we talking about the same books?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Gallimard is certainly not a good source for reliable copyright information. They tag everything they publish with a (c), even when there is clearly no copyright whatsoever. Their policy is FUD and copyfraud as much as possible. Yann (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, this DR is based on Gallimard claim, that's why it counts. Now the dates may be right, but we cannot rely on Gallimard to be sure. The BnF catalogue is certainly a better source. Yann (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment for “information sharing” : the files have been transfered to the french wikisource (under the local EDP). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to Proust at the Majestic: The Last Days of the Author Whose Book Changed Paris, page 299, La Prisonnière was first published in November 1923. [6] ResidentScholar (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 06:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Works by Joaquim Mir
[edit]Transfer to English Wikipedia
[edit]- File:Aguas de Moguda (Mir).jpg (1917)
File:CasaTrinxet.jpg (1915-1920 - only the murals are by Mir, but additionally the photographer is unknown and probably published in Spain; Spain has no special rules for photographs)- I disagree with this deletion. This picture has nothing from Joaquim Mir but the category.
- This is a picture of a house built by Josep Puig i Cadafalch for the uncle of Joaquim Mir. Mir made the inner decoration of the dining room and the chapel, there is no trace of that in this photograph! You can see the information about this house in Casa Trinxet. --Enfo (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly FOP for any work in the image. For the photograph, I'm not sure about the rules for a 95 years old image from an unknown photographer.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Per my comment above I was only concerned about the copyright of the photograph. However, {{Anonymous-EU}} might possibly apply here so I removed this one. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Spanish law says that you should use the term specified in the copyright law of 1879 if the author died before 7 December 1987. The copyright law of 1879 does not list any separate term for anonymous works, which might mean that anonymous works also have a copyright term of life+80 years. It is entirely possible that the anonymous photographer of a photo from 1915-1920 might have died before 7 December 1987. It would be nice if we could have some clarification here regarding which copyright term to use. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Per my comment above I was only concerned about the copyright of the photograph. However, {{Anonymous-EU}} might possibly apply here so I removed this one. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly FOP for any work in the image. For the photograph, I'm not sure about the rules for a 95 years old image from an unknown photographer.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a picture of a house built by Josep Puig i Cadafalch for the uncle of Joaquim Mir. Mir made the inner decoration of the dining room and the chapel, there is no trace of that in this photograph! You can see the information about this house in Casa Trinxet. --Enfo (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with this deletion. This picture has nothing from Joaquim Mir but the category.
- File:Joaquim Mir - Aigües roges.JPG (circa 1921)
- File:Joaquim Mir - L'arbre gran.JPG (circa 1903)
- File:Joaquim Mir - Laderas de Montjüic.JPG (from 1896 until 1897)
- File:Joaquim Mir - Primavera.JPG (circa 1910)
File:MIR2.jpg (this is an image of a 1903 mural at Casa Trinxet, which normally would be exempt under FoP-Spain, but the printing pattern, no EXIF, etc. point to this being a scan and not the uploader's own photograph)- If FOP applies here (debatable), the photograph is just a reproductions of a 2D work, and then free under PD-Art.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe FOP would apply if this were in fact the uploader's own photo of the mural - we have many photos of murals in Spain. But this appears to be scanned from a book or poster - the printing artifacts are clearly visible and there's no EXIF. I can nominate these separately if you'd prefer. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are two issues with this image and next ones:
- Joaquim Mir's rights. I think these can be discussed here. FOP could be an issue.
- The photographer's and the publishers'rights: since this is mechanical reproduction of a 2D work, I think it's clearly PD-Art. PD-Art says the photographer has no rights if underlying work it's free - no matter if it's free due to expired copyright, author-chosen license, or FOP. If somebody disagree, we could open an new request. Anyway, I think the most challenging issue is FOP and painter's rights, so I wouldn't open a new request until this one about Joaquim Mir's rights is closed.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, that's an interesting argument. I'll ask about it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright and strike all images of murals from here. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are two issues with this image and next ones:
- I believe FOP would apply if this were in fact the uploader's own photo of the mural - we have many photos of murals in Spain. But this appears to be scanned from a book or poster - the printing artifacts are clearly visible and there's no EXIF. I can nominate these separately if you'd prefer. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If FOP applies here (debatable), the photograph is just a reproductions of a 2D work, and then free under PD-Art.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
File:MIR5.jpg (same as MIR2.jpg)File:MIR7.jpg (same as MIR2.jpg)File:Trinxet7.jpg (same as MIR2.jpg)- File:MirTrinxet-BrullVinoyoles-1413.jpg (1898)
- File:Parc del Laberint d'Horta, Joaquim Mir i Trinxet, Museu de Belles Arts de València.JPG (same work as en:File:Joaquim Mir - The Labyrinth (Horta, Barcelona) - Google Art Project.jpg but has frame)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
Transfer to Wikilivres
[edit]- File:Carrer dels Terrissaires.jpg (date unknown)
- File:Joaquim Mir - L'Hort dels Escolanets, Montserrat.JPG (circa 1931)
- File:Joaquim Mir Palma de Mallorca.jpg (date unknown)
- File:Joaquin Mir i Trinxet - Tarragona, España.jpg (unknown date)
- File:Joaquin Mir.jpg (unknown date)
- File:MirTrinxet-JosepCañas-1423.jpg (1936)
No need to transfer
[edit]- File:156 El gorg blau (Vitrall tríptic), de Joaquim Mir.jpg (orphaned and superseded by en:File:Joaquim Mir - Stained glass triptych- El Gorg Blau - Google Art Project.jpg)
- File:162 El gorg blau (Vitrall tríptic), de Joaquim Mir.jpg (orphaned and superseded by en:File:Joaquim Mir - Stained glass triptych- El Gorg Blau - Google Art Project.jpg)
- File:Joaquim Mir - Aigües roges.JPG (superseded by en:File:Joaquim Mir - Red Earth - Google Art Project.jpg)
- File:Joaquim Mir - L'arbre gran.JPG (superseded by en:File:Joaquim Mir - The Big Tree, Sa Calobra - Google Art Project.jpg)
- File:Joaquim Mir - Laderas de Montjüic.JPG (superseded by en:File:Joaquin Mir - Hillsides of Montjuïc - Google Art Project.jpg)
- File:Joaquim Mir - Primavera.JPG (superseded by en:File:Joaquim Mir - Spring - Google Art Project.jpg)
,_de_Joaquim_Mir.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_de_Joaquim_Mir.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Spain has 80 pma for artists dead before 1987 (see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain). Joaquim Mir died in 1940, and as far as I can tell lived and worked almost all of his life in Spain. Works dating before 1923 can be uploaded to English Wikipedia, and some already have been (see en:Category:Google Art Project works by Joaquim Mir). Other works can be uploaded to Wikilivres, as he has been dead for at least 50 years, making his work PD in Canada. Works can be undeleted in 2021. --Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded file File:Aguas de Moguda (Mir).jpg. I didn't know that rule when I did it. Obviously, I have to agree with the deletion (and apologize for the inconvenience).--Outisnn (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's okay! Most people are not familiar with the 80 pma rule in Spain (since most of Europe is only 70 pma). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the files are depicting copyrighted materials not covered by freedom of panorama policies appliable in the spanish legislation. I am agree on the generic proposal for deleting files made by this catalan painter, until it achieves the public domain. --Bestiasonica (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not public domain in Spain until 2021. Public Domain in countries with a copyright term of life plus 70 years. Cameta (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the files are depicting copyrighted materials not covered by freedom of panorama policies appliable in the spanish legislation. I am agree on the generic proposal for deleting files made by this catalan painter, until it achieves the public domain. --Bestiasonica (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's okay! Most people are not familiar with the 80 pma rule in Spain (since most of Europe is only 70 pma). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Only works in Transfer to Wikilivres section above were transferred to Wikilivres.
|
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|