Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/02/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![108 File:"Yellow evening.".JPG](#File:"Yellow_evening.".JPG){kind=link}
![109 File:"Yellow evening".JPG](#File:"Yellow_evening".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploaded by mistake. Correct versions exist. Hamblin (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Mistaken nom. INeverCry 01:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Most probably a copyrighted item being a commercial product of artistic nature. Its derivative (this picture) can be copyvio. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Clear case of non-free by reason of being Derivative work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't remove the file. Gscrumb (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Does not remotely look copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused, non educational logo out of scope Mono 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete No obvious educational use. -Pete F (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Cover of a magazine... Ginés90 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, this file is given to wikimedia commons by Barbara Klising and the editor Maxence Layet who have the copyright on this cover. --Copyleft (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Did they send permission to OTRS? --McZusatz (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The source has CC-BY-SA licencing, but is there any evidence that this is the copyright holder--it could be anyone. COM:OTRS is required, at which point the image can be undeleted if required. russavia (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work, no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Likely out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo marked as own work. Unlikely PD-textlogo, with original shapes. INeverCry 00:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo marked with no license. PD-textlogo is unlikely with original shapes. INeverCry 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio = English: deleteEsperanto: forviŝiPolski: skasowaćMarek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
SRaisin: My last company has asked me to upload this file for a wikipedia site for ArCon RealTime Renderer. As this article was always deleted and I am not in this company anymore, you could do what you like.
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A proper SVG exists at File:Flag of the West Indies Federation.svg Fry1989 eh? 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this, because the colors were wrong for the svg. but I've contacted the editor of the svg and got the colors changed. Still some sorting out to get them exactly right, but that's the better approach.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per above -Pete F (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
WIndows 8 Start Screen - CC-BY-SA? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
not in use Chiranjit Sonowal (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work, no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Sarbananda Sonowal.png. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It's useless to have to have 2 similar pictures, I will upload after this only the good one. Thank you. Greentrancer (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to delete a picture ? It needs to pass 99 weeks to delete a stupid imagine. Greentrancer (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low threshold of originality in the UK russavia (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sourced to John Miller, Duke Photography. Connection to uploader is unclear and a look at the original uploader's work leaves me suspicious. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Source info is sketchy at best. Considering uploader's other contributions, File:KerneyPatrick.JPG, File:ThreePointStance.jpg and en:File:ChrebetWayne.JPG, it's unlikely this is an original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Source info is sketchy at best. Considering uploader's other contributions, File:KerneyPatrick.JPG, File:ThreePointStance.jpg and en:File:ChrebetWayne.JPG, it's unlikely this is an original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. There is no proof of {{Attribution}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Indiana Jones is a copyrighted character, and this Logo scultpture of him (and the woman) independently has copyrightable aspects, making this a derivative work. Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete LOL great photograph, so I do regret that potential for copyright infringement of Lego products, and possibly film rights, are an issue and the products being the main focus of this image means that there is no De minimis rationale to apply. --Fæ (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP for sculptures in USA. Refer earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Madame Tussauds. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union. The Church was built in 1998.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I ' ve upload it 2 times Trobairitz (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I have upload 2 times the same picture Trobairitz (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
По личному запросу изображённого человека в Русской Википедии. Torin (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Have a link to her request please? (У Вас есть ссылка на её запрос пожалуйста?) Gryllida (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Photograph has been taken in a public place, so the subject's consent is not needed for publishing (see COM:PEOPLE). A person poses for a photo. Do you have any legal reason for deletion? Sealle (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- We generally don't delete content that is within our project scope. In particular, we don't delete legally hosted files that are still in use, which this one is. (Torin's removal of the image from the article was reverted.) The Russian Wikipedia project (like all other Wikipedia projects that I'm aware of) does not allow the subjects of articles to dictate their contents, as that would compromise the integrity of the encyclopædia. That includes the choice of illustrations. It seems that attempted influencing by persons with a conflict of interest is an ongoing issue with this article. It would be unfortunate if that situation were to spill over further to other projects or if Commons' procedures were unduly used to dictate which illustrations the Russian Wikipedia project chooses to use. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a conversation with her on Skype to video mode. She tried to put herself on the screen, but did not work. So I decided to help her. You can send her a request to elenalenina@gmail.com.--Torin (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Русский: Это как? У нас теперь предметы статьи диктуют что и как нам писать? --sasha (krassotkin) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a conversation with her on Skype to video mode. She tried to put herself on the screen, but did not work. So I decided to help her. You can send her a request to elenalenina@gmail.com.--Torin (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason. Now it's used and can be used in future. Such request is out of scope of our policies. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutral While being the author of the media, I do not wish to alienate the people I photography, however here, I lack evidence and insights on the exact situation. Esby (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)- Keep No doubt. Sealle (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The depicted person can contact photographer and have him request image deletion by email. It seems like a logical way to get the request through officially. --Gryllida (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really get why I should contact OTRS to get deletion of one of my image. I'd like to comment it a bit:
- either the person contact OTRS and submit a valid reason there to have the image deleted, the demand being proxyed to common admins. For serious cases, the foundation can also take action and delete via back office action.
- either the person can contact the photographer directly, in this case me, but I won't delete it myself, it's way better to handle it a proper DR.
- The good question is 'why do we delete such an image'? The answer I'll support is 'to not alienate the person being photographied': known persons on book fairs can choose either to pose or not pose for us, we don't necessarily have the time or the coordination to get a 'formal' agreement before publishing each photograph, according to the (french) law, we don't need it, but it's better to use a picture the model actually like than to use one for which he/she will complain. Appreciation of a photograph is subjective, but if there is some dialog, we can in most cases get a replacement photograph, it being taken by a wikimedia photographer (linked with chapters) or not (meaning OTRS will be essential to certify that the photograph is under a free licence).
- Here, I was never contacted by the person being photographied, so I stay neutral, according to the french law, I have a right to retract publication of such photograph(called 'droit de retrait' or 'droit de repentir', according to L.121-4 article of french intelectual property code (CLPI in french)), but I won't use it until I confirm that the person photographied is really asking for the deletion of the photograph. It is also debated if such right can be applied here on Commons, some people fears that someone will change his mind and retract all photograph he has taken, I do believe this can be used on case per case, to handle request similar to this one.
- Esby (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- See - it's content you would like to delete by request of the lady photographed, not you. It is already available on a ton of other websites who made use of the license you published it with. Deleting it here would make a re-upload quite possible and wouldn't remove the image from the Internet (which is what the lady wants) and you shouldn't worry about it. --Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, No violations of policies. --ssr (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Question for Esby. Can you please confirm if Elena Lenina was at this book fair as a participant? i.e. was she there promoting one of her works? As per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France, if she was at this book fair promoting her works, etc, then this will come under the exemption (public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life). If she was there in a private capacity as an attendee (private life), then she does have the right to privacy under French law. I am guessing from her posing for the photograph, that she was there as part of her "public" life. Please advise, as this will have some bearing on how I will close this request. russavia (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can read the background for the thing 'here (in Russian). Please use a translator if you don't read the language. It is crucial to understanding the conflict of interests that may be taking place: basically the lady is rich and got married and tries to influence the press to fake her age and remove some photos. Having them gone from Commons won't quite get them nuked from the rest of the Internet (it would be possible to grab any of the tons of websites that mirrored it and noted the license as well and re-upload of course -- we have no policies which would prevent such re-uploads) and I see no merit in following the query. --Gryllida (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of the issues surrounding this individual, and I would be in no way swayed by shenanigans. We need to wait to hear back from Esby. If Elena was at this book fair as an official participant, then we are under no obligation to remove this photo from our project, and I will not do it. If she was only there as a visitor, then we need to find out from Esby whether he had permission to photograph her (which is obvious from her quite clearly posing for the photo), and whether he had permission to publish the photo. Let's wait to hear back from Esby on this issue. russavia (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great - I'm not holding you from all that; would just want to make sure you are aware. Thanks for the details. --Gryllida (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- To answer the question, (Sorry, I was busy in Toulouse this weekend, partly for french wikimedia chapter activities), I'd assume she was present as a guest or promoting her book, as she was under a tent promoting her book, so technically, this image is perfectly fine according to the french law.
- Esby (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great - I'm not holding you from all that; would just want to make sure you are aware. Thanks for the details. --Gryllida (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of the issues surrounding this individual, and I would be in no way swayed by shenanigans. We need to wait to hear back from Esby. If Elena was at this book fair as an official participant, then we are under no obligation to remove this photo from our project, and I will not do it. If she was only there as a visitor, then we need to find out from Esby whether he had permission to photograph her (which is obvious from her quite clearly posing for the photo), and whether he had permission to publish the photo. Let's wait to hear back from Esby on this issue. russavia (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can read the background for the thing 'here (in Russian). Please use a translator if you don't read the language. It is crucial to understanding the conflict of interests that may be taking place: basically the lady is rich and got married and tries to influence the press to fake her age and remove some photos. Having them gone from Commons won't quite get them nuked from the rest of the Internet (it would be possible to grab any of the tons of websites that mirrored it and noted the license as well and re-upload of course -- we have no policies which would prevent such re-uploads) and I see no merit in following the query. --Gryllida (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- What about the fourth exception in Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France: "people related to news events of public interest or public information purposes"? Doesn't it mean nearly the same as with public figure in German law? The depicted person is clearly a celebrity, so, if this exception applies, there shouldn't be a problem for Commons in hosting this pic anyway. --A.Savin 10:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: After discussion with Esby it is clear that Elena was at the book fair in a promotional capacity relating to her profession -- he took a photo of her book which was on the table at which she was sitting in order to get her name for the photograph. So this is clearly exempted under COM:IDENT French provisions, and as the photo is in use, and has clear scope, the image will not be deleted. russavia (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Do not upload joke images of yourself. Senator2029 06:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I see no encyclopedic usefulness in this image. It also infringes personal rights. We can have this image back if this girls turns into someone notable with an article on Wikipedias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I do not understand the claim in the deletion nomination that personal rights have been infringed. The location is a top tourist site in India and a public place. Where photographs are taken in a public place, then there are no special personal rights that need concern Commons, unless there are direct issues of intrusive candid-camera nature photography, which is not the case here where one can see the model is happily consenting to being photographed. Indian law on freedom of panorama follows UK law, and so there are no concerns in that regard either. Commons is not limited to portrait photographs of notable people, and photographs which have educational value, such as showing dress and cultural variation, or are likely to be of use with general illustration are validly within scope. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I have deleted this as part of cleanup of uploads. COM:IDENT as no permission of photo of a child russavia (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This very small photo (93 × 120) is likely copied from the internet. Senator2029 06:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a cropped picture from a much larger sized photo, as per why it looks a little blurry. - Shadowlight9 07:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
based on http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9687409/18/ post #258 the images where found on google images. Tarawneh (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
based on http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9687409/18/ post #258 the images where found on google images. Tarawneh (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not PD US - URAA - Local upload to project where in use presumabyl acceptable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not intended to Be public 109.128.204.40 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of balloon artwork. Freedom of panorama in Chile does not extend to works of art not permanently installed. Psychonaut (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation Cédric Boissière (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a sculpture by Vyacheslav Klykov who died in 2006, no Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a sculpture by Vyacheslav Klykov who died in 2006, no Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 10:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
INCOMPLETE Harkamal550 (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi,
Oppose as no imho 'good' reason given, Roland 19:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
INCOMPLETE Harkamal550 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Image sourced to a website[1] which is under the CC-BY-NC-ND license - a license that is not allowed on Commons. No evidence for the "public domain" claim by the uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like it should probably be deleted unless another license can be secured. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- The file has been published by OLE Nepal as a PDF file (Ebook).Where they have published with Unless explicitly mentioned, all the contents on this website are licensed under creative commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported) which explains:You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work.... Now I am confused do I have right to convert it into JPG or not..-Krish Dulal (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You do not have the right to modify it. This means you are not allowed to delete, add or change something. However, these rights are required for a file to be uploaded on Commons.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused user image, outside project scope. moogsi (blah) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Hannoversche Allgemeine, Neue Presse, Hürriyet, Bild, Hannover - eine Stadt voll Glück, titelte die NP, die Menschen seien sehr zufrieden mit ihrem Leben.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of newspapers - de minimis does not work for this image 188.104.121.121 12:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The newspapers appear to be the priamry subject, so de minimis doesn't apply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Collage of various images. Copyrights of all images not clear. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
deprecated McZusatz (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete also: MediaWiki:Gadget-mwEmbed, MediaWiki:Gadget-mwEmbed/fr, MediaWiki:Gadget-mwEmbed/es and Help:Multimedia beta --McZusatz (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Image (although blurry) of a 1976 sculpture in Fort Wayne, US - no FOP. For a reference to a picture of the plaque on the statue -- Deadstar (msg) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted video material High Contrast (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No educational content. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 13:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Private image. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 14:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Private image. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 14:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Missing an educational content. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 14:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 04:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The play took place in Uruguay, so the license is wrong. The work is not in PD in Uruguay yet. Zeroth (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
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 Morocco. The architect died in 1999. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
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 Morocco. The architect died in 1999. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non free logo : it's not an own work, for sure. Supertoff (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Image non libre (logo) Habertix (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Please read {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
not used, blurry, does not show reported subject -- no useful education purpose NE Ent (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Another 'could be anything' photo from Bull-Doser. Personally I think it's Hilton Park motorway services station in a snowstorm. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--no, I'm pretty sure it's the Damrak. They had terrible snow in Amsterdam last week. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated; of no foreseeable use or educational value. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File was for use in self-promotional WP article (see w:User talk:Dash.tastix for more details) that has been speedy deleted. No reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. 208.81.184.4 15:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File was for use in self-promotional WP article (see w:User talk:Dash.tastix for more details) that has been speedy deleted at WP. No reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. 208.81.184.4 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. Also file was for use in self-promotional WP article (see w:User talk:Dash.tastix for more details) that has been speedy deleted at WP. No reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. 208.81.184.4 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File was for use in self-promotional WP article (see w:User talk:Dash.tastix for more details) that has been speedy deleted at WP. No reasonable expectation of educational value/usage. 208.81.184.4 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
copyvio Čtenář (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
derivative of an image (http://fr.web.img1.acsta.net/medias/nmedia/18/66/49/37/18936201.jpg), copyrighted by © Pierre Grise Distribution[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of copyrighted image Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat unlikely own work from 2013, as the same image was found in this year-2007-posting. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It's the derivative work of unpublished photo by unknown author. The image had been uploaded already and was deleted. Evil Russian (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Psychonaut as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Scan of non-free envelope artwork Yann (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Going to proper DR as per Commons:Village pump#Speedy deletation is beeing too speedy or some doesnt understand the policy !?. Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get the source of all images and a written permission. Yann (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete absent confirmation from the publisher (Почта России) that the uploader is the photographer and copyright holder. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Again as in others, all photos of me, drawing of path made in software. one is here. Other is probably in Flickr but not on Commons. Logotype is of Post of Russia, which isnt under copyrigth. Also Russian PTT has manual envelopes program, individuals can create them...Print-convert.ru. This one is very original. --Mile (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Print-convert.ru doesn't appear to be operated by Russian Post, and none of the sample custom envelopes on that site show the Russian Post logo. Did you add this logo yourself to make it appear as though your stationery was published by Russian Post? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I put it.
And here is why i could so :
Paragraph 5
Copyright shall not apply to ideas, concepts, principles, methods, processes, systems, means, solutions of technical, organizational and other problems, discoveries, facts, programming languages.
This logo is not under copyrigth.
--Mile (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as a forgery with no educational value. Out of scope and almost certainly constitutes passing off or some other violation of applicable trademark laws in Russia and Florida. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I am sorry to hear Psychonaut opinion, i think your vote is due to your missundersating and lack of policy understanding. No copyvio, this photos shouldnt end here at all. Some supervision of user should be done, if i see well user has just 5-6 editions on Commons. --Mile (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have admitted to taking someone else's imprint and affixing it to your own product in a manner which suggests that they are the author or publisher. This is known variously as "forgery", "counterfeiting", or "passing off", and is civilly and/or criminally actionable in all relevant jurisdictions. If you don't see how this is wrong, consider how you would feel if someone obtained a scan of your signature (which, like the Russian Post logo, is also in the public domain), used it to sign various documents that you didn't create, and uploaded them here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above: no source, no permission, may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Psychonaut as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Scan of non-free envelope artwork Yann (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Going to proper DR as per Commons:Village pump#Speedy deletation is beeing too speedy or some doesnt understand the policy !?. Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get the source of all images and a written permission. Yann (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete absent confirmation from the publisher (Почта России) that the uploader is the photographer and copyright holder. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
All photos of me, actually this one can be deleted since i made second version a bit better. --Mile (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as a forgery with no educational value. Out of scope and almost certainly constitutes passing off or some other violation of applicable trademark laws in Russia and Florida. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above: no source, no permission, may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo of company with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Psychonaut as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Scan of a non-free postcard Yann (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Going to proper DR as per Commons:Village pump#Speedy deletation is beeing too speedy or some doesnt understand the policy !?. Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get the source of all images and a written permission. Yann (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This image is composed of nine separate photographs (plus two illustrations, though they're probably non-infringing). The image quality is high enough that it's plausible the uploader produced the collage himself (that is, it looks photoshopped rather than scanned from a hard copy). When I saw the uploader's long record of copyright violations I assumed that this was just another scan or photograph of non-free third-party content, but perhaps I was overly hasty in nominating it on those grounds. It would help if the uploader could point to the original images making up the collage so that we can confirm he's the photographer. That said, I'm skeptical that the image would be in-scope here—we're not a repository of user-generated postcard templates. Does this postcard have any educational use or historical significance? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I dont have to upload all of images to show they are mine. Most of them arent uploaded here but you can check my Flickr.
For other go to Flickr
--Mile (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Purpose !? It has, were it was... Tourism of Serbia, with its landamarks. --Mile (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as out of scope (though probably not a copyright violation as originally tagged). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I am sorry to hear Psychonaut opinion, i think your vote is due to your missundersating and lack of policy understanding. No copyvio, this photos shouldnt end here at all. Some supervision of user should be done, if i see well user Psychonaut has just 5-6 editions on Commons. --Mile (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am willing to entertain the notion that I have misunderstood the policy I cited. Could you please explain to me in your own words how Commons:Project scope applies to this image? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I note for the record that Psychonaut has 917 edits on Commons and just over 20,000 on all WMF projects - half as many here as PetarM, but not a raw beginner.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Collages are problematic on Commons. Those that are only images -- the notable buildings in a city, perhaps -- can be useful as the lead image in an article on the city, see Chicago. For that use they must be in a vertical format. Those that contain text or artwork generated by the creator are much less useful -- it is usually hard to see where they would be used on or off WMF. They amount to "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" (see Commons:PS#Examples.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above: no source, no permission, may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Missing rights -Bibonius (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non existent. Yann (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If this painting is "own work" as claimed, then it is probably out of scope since it is from a not-notable artist. If it is actually the work of a notable artist, then we require permission from the artist to keep it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If this painting is "own work" as claimed, then it is probably out of scope since it is from a not-notable artist. If it is actually the work of a notable artist, then we require permission from the artist to keep it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The flag bears the Singapore Armed Forces crest, which is non-free as it was only introduced in 1960: see "List of coats of arms used in Singapore"). Works owned by the Government of Singapore are copyrighted for 70 years from the publication date: see "Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Government works". Since the crest was used from 1960 onwards, it will only enter the public domain in 2030. The file has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as "en:File:Singapore Army service flag.svg" under a fair-use justification. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a work owned by the government, it was drawn for us, whoever drew it released the copyright. Keep Fry1989 eh? 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Singapore Armed Forces crest on the flag is a direct copy of the original crest. Regardless of whether it was redrawn, it's a non-free derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Jacklee is correct on this matter. The arms is not 70 years old yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that simple and you know that. We have free drawings of all sorts of "copyrighted items" on here. Just because Singapore's law is more "strict", doesn't change that. Fry1989 eh? 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "We have free drawings of all sorts of 'copyrighted items'"? Well, then we need to examine the justifications for these items, and if they are in fact permitted in the Commons. Can you provide some examples of drawings of copyrighted works supposedly allowed on the Commons which are similar to the file being discussed here? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that simple and you know that. We have free drawings of all sorts of "copyrighted items" on here. Just because Singapore's law is more "strict", doesn't change that. Fry1989 eh? 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Singapore Armed Forces crest on the flag is a direct copy of the original crest. Regardless of whether it was redrawn, it's a non-free derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: (Re-)drawing a work oneself does not make one the copyright holder - see COM:DW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously? Because it depicts soldiers from Colorado and Slovenia working together as part of the Colorado-Slovenia State Partnership Program. Briansmith451 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination. --Jonund (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted - no info given that this logo is published under a free license High Contrast (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The flag bears the Singapore Armed Forces crest, which was introduced in 1960: see "List of coats of arms used in Singapore". Works owned by the Government of Singapore are copyrighted for 70 years from the publication date: see "Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Government works". If the Singapore Armed Forces crest was used from 1960 onwards, it will only enter the public domain in 2030. (This file has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as "en:File:Singapore Armed Forces flag.svg" under a fair-use justification.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason as this DR. Fry1989 eh? 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've commented over there. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: For the same reasons as the other DR cited in the discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The flag bears the lion head symbol of Singapore, which was created by the Government of Singapore in 1986. Works owned by the Government of Singapore are copyrighted for 70 years from the publication date: see "Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Government works". The lion head symbol will only enter the public domain on 1 January 2057. The lion head symbol was deleted from the Commons after this deletion request: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg". (This file has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as "en:File:Republic of Singapore Air Force service flag.svg" under a fair-use justification.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I say Keep, Singaporean copyright law should be reassessed regarding it's applicability on COmmons because it's...strange. We made this, I don't think mere resemblance is enough for a violation. Fry1989 eh? 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jacklee; the item must be public domain in the US and the source country, and in this case, is Singapore. The current flag was from 1990, but this was the first time I was told when the lion symbol was created (so the year I was born, cool, easy to keep track of). It is a derivative work and we just cannot keep it. If I can also ask Jacklee to see if what items under Singapore legislation are not protected by copyright, since he is there. Delete User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fry1989 – yes, it would be better if government works in Singapore were in the public domain. But Singapore is not the only country that has laws providing that the Government holds the copyright in its works. Until the law is changed, according to Commons policy we can't simply ignore it. I'm not following your "mere resemblance" argument. The lion head symbol used in the flag doesn't "merely resemble" the actual symbol, it is identical to it, making it a non-free derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The question I have is this, Jacklee, is legislation in Singapore not copyrightable? I have not found any exemption from copyright at all in Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't any special exemption for legislation from the normal copyright law rules, so the conclusion must be that the rules relating to Government copyright applies to legislation as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- That answers my question, thank you sir. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't any special exemption for legislation from the normal copyright law rules, so the conclusion must be that the rules relating to Government copyright applies to legislation as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The question I have is this, Jacklee, is legislation in Singapore not copyrightable? I have not found any exemption from copyright at all in Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fry1989 – yes, it would be better if government works in Singapore were in the public domain. But Singapore is not the only country that has laws providing that the Government holds the copyright in its works. Until the law is changed, according to Commons policy we can't simply ignore it. I'm not following your "mere resemblance" argument. The lion head symbol used in the flag doesn't "merely resemble" the actual symbol, it is identical to it, making it a non-free derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jacklee; the item must be public domain in the US and the source country, and in this case, is Singapore. The current flag was from 1990, but this was the first time I was told when the lion symbol was created (so the year I was born, cool, easy to keep track of). It is a derivative work and we just cannot keep it. If I can also ask Jacklee to see if what items under Singapore legislation are not protected by copyright, since he is there.
Deleted: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singapore Army Service Flag.svg. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Official author photo (source given is the back cover of a book, and it has also been published elsewhere on the web, e.g. [3]), no evidence for permission. HaeB (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SpiderMum as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free logo. Good-faith claim that it's too simple for copyright, so merits a DR imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Too simple for the US, that's for sure. I'd say Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} as tagged. Country of origin is the UK where threshold of originality is low. January (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/18#c-Jonund-2013-02-18T18:49:00.000Z-File:"Yellow_evening.".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
![08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/18#c-Yann-2013-02-24T08:43:00.000Z-File:"Yellow_evening.".JPG){kind=link}
Manuel José dos Santos Leite Jonund (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![18:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/18#c-Jonund-2013-02-18T18:52:00.000Z-File:"Yellow_evening".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
![08:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/18#c-Yann-2013-02-24T08:43:00.000Z-File:"Yellow_evening".JPG){kind=link}
Personal reasons, and there are plenty of other pictures on Commons showing the same (or similar) signs at Piccadilly Circus. Andrew (My talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. INeverCry 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Suspect this is a copyvio, [4], although lower resolution, pre-dates the original enwiki upload. There is also a high resolution version at [5] with the EXIF giving the date taken as 28/09/2006. The uploader has had one other image deleted as a copyvio on enwiki [6]. January (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.defence-point.gr/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Financial_Times_2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Denniss as duplicate and it was deleted by Sreejithk2000.
I restored the file and opened a DR instead, because it's not a duplicate, they're different versions of this file, I think it would be strange if both versions on this FPC link to the same file. ■ MMXX talk 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal picture of user, outside project scope. moogsi (blah) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Is this really in scope? A proposed chartist flag from the 1830s covering the current United Kingdom. moogsi (blah) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- MOST of the uploader's files have no scope. Delete Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Uploaded by mistake (by me). Other versions have been uploaded that are correct. Hamblin (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I question the claim that this is the uploader's own work. This image appears to have been taken by Nigel Aw and the presence of the watermark and the very low resolution is a little suspicious. Moreover, it seems clear that the other upload by the same user (File:Deepak Jaikishan PC.jpg) is not his own work and is taken from a newspaper website [7] Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I question the claim that this is the uploader's own work. This image appears to be copied from this newspaper story. The other upload by the same user is also tagged as the uploader's own work but is equally suspicious. See File:Deepak Jaikishan.jpg. Pichpich (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have since uploaded a higher-quality file of this image. Hamblin (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The owner has withdrawn permission for publishing this image file. Sampigesrini (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please notice the overprinting which shows the true source, Please OTRS review this image as it seems unlikely that this small size image was the one which was covered by OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whpq as no permission (No permission since)
High-res with EXIF, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Previously published at lower resolution at https://www.facebook.com/1636902729956928/photos/a.1636950679952133/2484314461882413/?type=3. However, I cannot find any older copies of the high-res version that we have, and the existence of an edited alternative increases the chances that the uploader is in fact the photographer. Note that a different image was previously uploaded under this name, received VRT permission, and then was deleted in a DR above for reasons that I cannot comprehend. The username of the present uploader is Nipuni711, which matches the name of the photographer of the deleted image (Nipuni Wickramanayake). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Per King of Hearts and the fact that the same file already had VRT permission before it was deleted, which is pretty clear evidence that it can safely be hosted on Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Just to clarify, this file has not received VRT permission before. Rather, the deleted history contains a different photo of the same subject with a watermark that says "Nipuni Wickramanayake | PHOTOGRAPHY", and that photo has received VRT confirmation. Based on this information, I can conclude that Nipuni711 is in fact Nipuni Wickramanayake. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
{{copyvio|fichier copié un site qui interdit la reproduction sans autorisation http://www.boreally.org/mentions-legales/}} Geralix (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am the author of these photos, they are published in CC BY / NC / ND on my website but the version on Wikimedia is sent under CC-BY/SA.
- The license at the source should state that the files are released under a free license, otherwise we can host them on Commons with conflicting licensing claims. INeverCry 22:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Per my comment on the image discussion page: There is a difference between proposed buildings and fictional buildings. The Barad Dur (in Mordor) has no place in this diagram, and its inclusion completely devalues its worth when used on proposed building articles in the encyclopedia. Since no one has responded, I think it is time to bring this to deletion. Astronaut (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but it's anyway PD--Sanandros (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Thank you! High Contrast (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Logo added to Commons in view of appearing in an article, which was deleted because of admission rules. That logo has no more reason to be on Commons. IGREKKESS (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
According to this New China article (ZH), calligraphy is copyrighted in China and logos that have such creative elements are copyrighted. The Air China logo was written by hand by former CPC Leader Deng Xiaoping. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Meets the Commons:TOO#United_Kingdom for copyrightability of a logo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Meets the Commons:TOO#United_Kingdom for copyrightability of a logo. Note whole it is a subsidary of a German company, this logo was in use way before the purchase. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
not an own work, may be copyrighted, see metadata Ezarateesteban 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not copyrighted because the author of this portrait died more than 70 years ago (John Charlton, died in 1917)Jackbu92
- Please, fill the author field on the description --Ezarateesteban 12:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done! Jackbu92
- Please, fill the author field on the description --Ezarateesteban 12:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Source information provided Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 16:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
CD cover. Non-free. Needs OTRS in my opinion. Letartean (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No educational content. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 21:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a crop of someone else's image: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/2370371460/598960_108473365962337_1033666447_n.jpg&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/SkankinBrews&h=500&w=333&sz=36&tbnid=oQOOdG3JzAOPvM&tbnh=275&tbnw=183&zoom=1&usg=__6RkCmOef6J8zdtoqJlb9XSCydYE=&sa=X&ei=cZgiUb3hGKKl4ASbs4HQAg&ved=0CDcQ8g0
However, the image on Twitter seems to be smaller. Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This photo is property of Harry Gann, please give photo credit or delete, also this photo was taken at Pt Mugu, not China Lake 174.235.3.97 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The National Museum of Naval Aviation wrote: "Our photographs are public domain, with very few exceptions which you do not need to worry about. However, if a photograph is used in a publication we request the image be labeled "Courtesy of National Naval Aviation Museum". Roger Mott- Library Volunteer 9/11/09. This mail was forwarded to Commons. Cobatfor (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The description "Official FENCE press picture" suggests that this is an unfree image. Stefan4 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The wording "One of the shots used for Bianca Moon's album cover" suggests that the image is unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
no exif, not in use, doubtful own work as found often on different websites AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
no exif, doubtful own work as found often on different websites like [[8]] AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Starship9000 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The file about the glitch pokemon is a copyright violation of Bulbapedia because it is a place that is incompatible with our license.
This is a question mark in 2 circles, so maybe too simple to be copyrighted. INeverCry 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Only seems to make sense in the context of the other images. Unless it seems like we need an 8-bit pixel version in Category:Question marks --moogsi (blah) 09:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know quite what is going on here -- Starship9000 is both the uploader and the nominator. However, I don't see any reason to keep this tiny image among the 200+ we have in the category. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is a copyright violation of bulbapedia. It is a photo of the glitch pokemon from bulbapedia. Bulbapedia's license are incompatible with ours so this image needs to be speedy deleted. Thanks! --Starship9000 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
this is not a nice image, please delete... Butter25 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pas certain de la licence => A supprimer Pierre1966 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . JuTa 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Another user claims the same file under different name is own work. It is either not a own work or a licensing washing. Mys 721tx (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio shizhao (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrepessoa7 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MrTrepaflow (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Trepafow2.JPG
- File:Trepaflow03.JPG
- File:Trepaflow04.JPG
- File:Trepaflow00.JPG
- File:El calor del puto infierno.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MrTrepaflow (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Entre tejados cual gato.jpg
- File:Trepaflow LP.JPG
- File:Trepaflow LP02.JPG
- File:Trepaflow&Manco.jpg
- File:Trepaflow Comunista y orgulloso.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work, no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No license, copyrighted logo, not asserted as self, does not meet PD-textlogo INeverCry 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Unused logo with no educational value (COM:SCOPE) Yann (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a big company, so it might be in scope. Anyway, this is not a valid reason for speedy. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope states that clear violations of COM:SCOPE can be speedied; it is my opinion that this image falls out of Commons scope as there is no realistic use for an image that is duplicated by slightly different versions on the two wikis I checked (enwiki and frwiki). I see no realistic educational purpose for an image rejected by two local communities and subsequently unused across all Wikimedia wikis. Mono 00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted per Mono. Additionally, this is a very low-quality image whose purpose is duplicated by File:AXA Group.jpg, a higher-res file which switches the position of the logo and the slogan –moogsi (blah) 04:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Much nesha ar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images and some possible copyvios.
- File:Infrared in laptop toshiba.ogv
- File:Mix Max4.jpg
- File:Mix Max3.jpg
- File:Komputer lama.jpg
- File:Mix Max2.jpg
- File:Mix Max1.jpg
- File:Gunung Watu Kebo Ambulu.jpg
- File:Akbar2010.jpg
- File:Avil.jpg
- File:Doni Khusuma and Agus Yuianto.jpg
- File:Andy Agus Aji Yayang.jpg
- File:Sungai Ambulu.jpg
- File:Muhammad Andi Wijaya.jpg
- File:Wiwin and Fika.jpg
- File:Dwi Putra Budi Sanjaya 2009.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Images taken from internet, sometimes fully credited, multiple sources. No evidence of permission. Very likely copyvios.
- File:Alfonsogatto.jpg -- does PD-old really apply here?
- File:Teatro verdi-soffitto.jpg
- File:San pietro a corte.jpg
- File:Asdaaa.jpg -- [9]
- File:ConventoSanLorenzo1.JPG -- massimo pica
- File:Ipogeo.san.pietro.jpg -- vincenzo avagliano
- File:Luci.d'artistasalerno2013.jpg
- File:San.matteo.2013.jpg
- File:Camera di commerciosalerno.jpg
- File:Chiesa.rotonda.jpg
- File:Vagone.auswitc.jpg
- File:Out-of-bound-1.jpg
- File:Ddssdsddmuseo.jpg
- File:All 12.jpg
- File:Sanpietroinvinculis.jpg
- File:S. Maria de Lama.jpg
- File:Alimundo3.jpg
- File:Chiesa-San-Benedetto.jpg
- File:Apollonia.chiesa.sa.png
- File:Santandreadelavina-01.jpg
- File:34ss7yq.jpg
- File:Cittadella-5510.jpg
- File:Tribunale.jpg
- File:Giardini carnale-0590.jpg
- File:Fratte32 popup.jpg
- File:Fratte27 popup.jpg
- File:Chiesa SanGiorgio.jpg
- File:07-teatro-7273.jpg
- File:Exsalid.teatro.jpg
- File:Testa.apollo.jpg
- File:Museo-salerno.jpg
- File:Centrale del latte salerno.jpg
- File:Antonio.amato.pasta.jpg
moogsi (blah) 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by HJ Mitchell. Yann (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files that are texts but probably copyrighted
[edit]Although simple text, (title card and certificates from the film board), these texts are part of the film which is not yet in public domain and hence it's copyrights are with producers/directors/others. As to the ticket, although simple text, it is just similar to any newspaper article or leaflet or advertisement with simple texts that are considered to be copyrighted.
- File:Sukumar Ray (documentary, 1987) title card.jpg
- File:Suvarna Rekha film certificate.png
- File:Jukti Takko Aar Gappo film certificate.png Keep, {{PD-text}} Yann (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:Waarish film censor certificate.jpg
- File:Maratha Mandir film ticket.jpg Keep, {{PD-text}} Yann (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
_title_card.jpg){kind=link}
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: To clear doubt, I asked the question at Help Desk with an example what I was trying to upload. There an admin suggested the license etc. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Admin said" is not really a reason to keep. First 4 of 5 are screenshots of a films. Would we upload such screenshots of maybe showing a simple text in form of a book or Dhoom 2's signature A? For ticket, its same as any newspaper article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is reason to "endorse" the "keep" vote, as it was asked at the Help Desk to clarify the same confusion! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay! Noted it is "endorsement of keep". But it would be good if you could first justify your "keep" comment before endorsing it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- At least 2 images are {{PD-text}}. Awaiting opinions about the others. Yann (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think the title card is also {{PD-text}}. I think the two censor's certificates are covered by the second bullet here
- "Although Government works are copyrighted, the reproduction or publication of following works not copy protected:
- Act of a Legislature.
- Report of a committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government.
- Judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority."
- "Although Government works are copyrighted, the reproduction or publication of following works not copy protected:
- I'm assuming that the censor is actually appointed by the Government and is not an industry function, as it is in the USA.
- I have the most trouble with the ticket -- while most of it is just facts -- time, place, name film, etc., arguably the fine print is long enough to have a copyright. I think, though, that it would be very hard to conclude that it actually has a copyright because it is so similar to thousands of such texts the world around.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the ticket (which lacks sufficient originality) and the censors' certificates (as per Jameslwoodward). I'm not sure about the title card, which might (barely) meet the threshold of originality; it's got some sort of background image which might be a creative work, or at least creatively selected for the card. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Images of non-notable musical band, out of scope
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Stormtrooper figure from LEGO Star Wars.jpg and File:Stormtrooper figure from LEGO Star Wars (cropped).jpg
[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Derivative of the lego figurine, which does not qualify as a utilitarian item. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- LEGO derivative? I don't think so. George Lucas? Maybe, but I would say there is more art/creativity in perspective and setup in the pictures then it is in the blocks themselves. And it is used on pl:Wikiprojekt:Mykologia :-). And if that is not in the scope of Commons how is most of this Category:Girls in anime and manga :->. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing this should be deleted on scope grounds, I'm arguing that it's a copyright violation, and if it is then whether it is within scope matters not a jot. That there is more creativity in the background is similarly irrelevant as the figurine fails de minimis (it is a central part of the image, without which the rest of the picture is pointless). -mattbuck (Talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for photos of food in the United States or Canada.
- File:Lapeer Hot N Now Menu - 2007.jpg
- File:Taco John's Drive Up Menu.jpg
- File:TacoTime Lethbridge Alberta. Price Sign Drive thru 8298.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, outside project scope.
moogsi (blah) 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pipiarodriguez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures, outside project scope.
moogsi (blah) 15:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Collection of album covers/promo photos. No evidence of permission.
- File:84b6f166d1da11e1bf8b22000a1e8b2b 7.jpg
- File:7908d39ab55911e1af7612313813f8e8 7.jpg
- File:Dd0b1904de8811e1bb6a1231381f737d 7.jpg
- File:5044f46e01b411e2a86422000a1cbab1 7.jpg
- File:037ffaf2bd8511e1a9f71231382044a1 7.jpg
- File:2e1315ee29cb11e28d0622000a9e13b7 7.jpg
- File:4c015b3ef3c411e1a64f22000a1e9e7e 7.jpg
- File:310f9bb4f51911e1b28822000a1c9e1a 7.jpg
- File:Ec135d864be211e2b1f822000a1f9751 7.jpg
- File:Y cd398eb0.jpg
- File:X 43558742.jpg
- File:Vagabund.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dorotatomaszewska (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission and also out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Szpila babuni.tiff
- File:Szlachecki naszyjnik.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik - Starowieyski.jpg
- File:Naszyjnik "Biżuteria swetrowa".jpg
- File:Naszyjnik ciułacza.jpg
- File:Szkic "Biżuteria swetrowa".jpg
- File:Naszyjnik z czaszką.jpg
- File:Kolczyki z perłami i diamentami.jpg
- File:Starowieyski - spinki.tiff
- File:Starowieyski 3.tiff
- File:Starowieyski 2.tiff
- File:Starowieyski 1.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik matrosa bosmanski.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik rycerza.tiff
- File:Rody Jubilerskie A&A.jpg
- File:F. Starowieyski wraz ze szkicami.jpg
- File:Naszyjnik matrosa majtka.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik konstelacje.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik - F. Starowieyski.tiff
- File:Naszyjnik 2 - F. Starowieyski.tiff
- File:F. Starowieyski - naszyjnik z muszlą 2.tiff
- File:F. Starowieyski - naszyjnik.tiff
- File:F. Starowieyski - naszyjnik z muszlą 1.tiff
- File:F. Starowieyski - szkic 2.jpg
- File:F. Starowieyski - przywieszka.jpg
- File:F. Starowieyski - szkic 1.jpg
- File:Wnętrze salonu jubilerskiego A&A 2.JPG
- File:Wnętrze salonu jubilerskiego A&A 1.JPG
- File:Wnętrze salonu jubilerskiego A&A.JPG
- File:Amulet czarownicy.tiff
- File:Bransoleta A&A.jpg
- File:Pierścionek z rubinem i brylantami.jpg
- File:Przywieszka serce.jpg
- File:Bransoleta z brylantami A&A Dom Jubilerski.jpg
- File:Pierścionek biżuteria A&A.jpg
- File:Pierścionek A&A Dom Jubilerski.jpg
- File:Kolczyki z szafirami i brylantami.jpg
- File:Kolczyki A&A Dom Jubilerski.jpg
- File:Kolczyki z brylantami.jpg
- File:Pierścionek A&A.jpg
- File:Naszyjnik A&A.jpg
- File:Pierścionek z brylantami.jpg
- File:Kolczyki A&A.jpg
- File:Biżuteria A&A.jpg
- File:Brosza z perłą i emalią.jpg
- File:Kolczyki z akwamarynami i brylantami.jpg
- File:Konkurs plastyczny A&A.jpg
- File:Konkurs plastyczny A&A - lauraci.jpg
- File:Wnętrze salonu.jpg
- File:Naszyjnik.jpg
- File:Salon "Dom Złota".jpg
- File:A&A Dom Jubilerski.jpg
- File:Kolczyki z perłami i brylantami.jpg
- File:Witryna.jpg
- File:Bransoleta z brylantami.jpg
- File:AiA ksiega 2012.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haingoaifilm (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
- File:THAI SAN Acteur de Cinéma.jpg
- File:THAI SAN Movie actor.JPG
- File:THAI SAN acteur de cinéma.JPG
- File:THAI SAN Acteur de cinéma.JPG
- File:Movie Actor THAI SAN.jpg
- File:THAI SAN Movie Actor.JPG
- File:Movie actor THAI SAN.jpg
- File:Acteur THAI SAN.JPG
- File:Actor THAI SAN Frédéric.jpg
- File:THÁI SAN.jpg
- File:Acteur THAI SAN Frédéric.jpg
- File:THAI SAN.jpg
- File:THAI SAN Frédéric.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laser Combat LSD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Snowfall.jpg
- File:Shimla in HP.jpg
- File:Rock Garden.jpg
- File:Rohtang Pass at manali.jpg
- File:Ranthabbore.jpg
- File:Patnitop1 1240235387.jpg
- File:Raghunath Temple.JPG
- File:Patnitop.jpg
- File:Nubra 234.jpg
- File:Pangong Lake Leh.jpg
- File:Neugal Cafe.jpg
- File:Naina-devi-temple.jpg
- File:Nahargarh Fort Jaipur.jpg
- File:Mansar-Lake.jpg
- File:Leh & Ladakh.jpg
- File:Mansa-devi--chandi-mandir.jpg
- File:Leh & Ladkh.jpg
- File:Kufri.jpg
- File:Kashmir dal lake afp.jpg
- File:Khajjiar himachal pradesh.jpg
- File:Jwala ji temple.jpg
- File:Jantar Manatar.jpg
- File:Kargil.jpg
- File:Jal Mahal at jaipur.jpg
- File:Jaigarh Fort at Jaipur.jpg
- File:Hadima Tample.jpg
- File:Dggg.jpg
- File:Garden at khajjiar.jpg
- File:Gulmarag.jpg
- File:Dalhousie.jpg
- File:Dal-lake-dharamshala.jpg
- File:Dal lake at srinagar.jpg
- File:Dshjdgjhj.jpg
- File:City Palace.jpg
- File:Chokhi Dhani.jpg
- File:Birla Mandir at Jaipur.jpg
- File:Baijnath-temple-kulu.jpg
- File:Bahu Fort.jpg
- File:Albart hall.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Alfombra primer 2-monicaspear 135913219495 364x485.jpg
- File:Gabriel porras (como miguel valdez en corazon valiente).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andy bogado mongelos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rosalindegirard (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of posters and newspaper articles. No evidence of permission.
- File:Dbd juillet 2012.jpg
- File:Dbd janvier2013.jpg
- File:Article lyon direct 01 13.jpg
- File:Critique zoo le linceul du vieux monde.jpg
- File:Zoo ismahane2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Reproductions of published media. The uploader's claim of being the author of those texts, photographs, etc, signed by different names, is not credible, as he/she has not provided evidence that he/she is all those people. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
providing a blank invalid source and also wikipedia is not a source for photos such as for Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame 'Hadrawi' so i believe it's a copyright infringement. --Antime • (My Talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the collage's creation the Hadrawi image was considered a legitimate free image hence why it was included, a replacement of that particular image will be sufficient. Wholesale deletion is over the top. --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Scoobycentric. The Hadrawi image was indeed cleared at the time the collage was updated by myself. If there's a problem with this one image, that is no reason to attempt to delete the collage wholesale when another could easily replace it. Middayexpress (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I believe that after removing the image , you should revise most of ur contributions due to providing severals invalid links in the description pages as you did here as well as here too . --Antime • (My Talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did not "provide invalid links". As clearly indicated above, these images were very much cleared when I transfered them to Wiki from their original upload place on English Wiki. But if you want to be picky about things, then I think it's my turn to point out to you that per Wiki policy, you should have at least contacted me on my talk page & alerted me of this deletion request instead of trying to discreetly get rid of these images. My post above still stands. And I assure you that should this image get deleted, there's another collage just like it with a perfectly legitimate image ready to take the Hadrawi image's place. The latter only serves to further underline the utter pointlessness of this deletion request. Middayexpress (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I believe that after removing the image , you should revise most of ur contributions due to providing severals invalid links in the description pages as you did here as well as here too . --Antime • (My Talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The copyrighted part is not showing any longer.
Comment: this is a good faith derived work by a Commons user. Therefore, if a picture of this collage later appears to be copyrighted, then fix the collage or ask the creators to fix it. Just deleting this image would be harsh and disrespectful of the work of Middayexpress and Scoobycentric. — Xavier, 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Some images of this collage have been deleted. By now some of those deleted ones still appear in this collage. Either the get removed or the whole collage must get deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete -- Per the above, I created a new collage here; so file is now also redundant. Middayexpress (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Self-promotion by uploader. Not educational.
GeorgHH • talk 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amanpreet Singh Sokhi (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Amanpreet Sokhi with his brothers.jpg
- File:Signature of Amanpreet Sokhi.jpg
- File:Casper Sokhi.jpg
- File:Amanpreet Sokhi.jpg
- File:Amanpreet Sokhi's signature.jpg
INeverCry 23:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DrakeUnlimited (talk · contribs)
[edit]The images appear to be part of a hoax. The user has uploaded fake photos of himself with famous people and also there is no evidence that Unlimited Records is a genuine record label. The images should be deleted because some of them are copyvios or because Commons is not a personal photo album.
- File:Unlimited News Standard Logo White.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Amerigo One Nation Under God.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Amerigo.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Reptilian.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - JULY.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Red Skull.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Space Diamond 2.jpg
- File:Unlimited Muisc - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - 20,000 Leagues 2.jpg
- File:Unlimited Muisc - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - 20,000 Leagues 1.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Space Diamond 1.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Blood Sweat Tears.jpg
- File:Unlimited Muisc - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Mic Check - Guitar Mannequins - Zero BW.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Black and White Guitar.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Black and White Cityscape.jpg
- File:Unlimited Muisc - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Spotlight.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Standard Black.jpg
- File:Unlimited Music - Unlimited Records - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild - Keep Calm and Ice Up.jpg
- File:Rage Face - Rageface - Erin Burnette - CNN - MEME - Election - 2012 - Obama - Romney.jpg
- File:9.20.12 - Unlimited Records - Mic Check - Ashton Martin - Tone - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake - Photoshoot 2.JPG
- File:9.20.12 - Unlimited Records - Mic Check - Ashton Martin - Tone - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake - Photoshoot 1.JPG
- File:9.8.12 Yoshi Downtown Atlanta Unlimited Records Deepak Nk.jpg
- File:Diamondicon.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Unlimited Records F.&.A.M. 42.jpg
- File:Yoshi Downtown Atlanta Unlimited Records Deepak Nk 2012.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake 35 F.O.S..jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 36.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 34.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 35.jpg
- File:UNLIMITED RECORDS - 2012 - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild.jpg
- File:UNLIMITED RECORDS - Business Card - Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 29.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 33.JPG
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 9.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 30.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 27.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 31.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 28.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 26.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 24.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 23.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 25.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 22.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 19.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 20.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 21.JPG
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 13.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 17.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 18.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 15.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 16.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 14.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 10.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 12.JPG
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 11.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 7.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake Rothschild 5.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake 2 F.O.S..jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake 1 H.O.T.L.D..jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake 0.jpg
- File:Deepak Nk - Atticus Drake 3 F.&A.M..JPG
- File:Mr. Nanda3.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Acepoundpound (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - images taken with 3 different cameras - others with no EXIF - unsourced collages - own work claim doubtful
- File:Shenzhen Music Hall.jpg
- File:New Town of Pearl River.jpg
- File:The sleepless city - Shenzhen.jpg
- File:KingKey 100.JPG
- File:Shenzhen Stadium..jpg
- File:Beautiful Shenzhen attractions.jpg
- File:Luo hu district, Shenzhen.jpeg
- File:Three commercial areas of Shenzhen.jpg
- File:The Da Mei sha beach in Shenzhen.jpg
- File:NIGHT LIVING.jpg
INeverCry 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alirezafathi84 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 23:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user INeverCry 23:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo marked as own work that clearly does not meet Pd-textlogo requirements INeverCry 00:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be obvious that the uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. It is Crown copyright, not the uploader's. There's a similar image at en.wiki that I have tagged for fair use in one article. Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It should be obvious that this is PD because A: the shield of Ontario dates back to 1868, and even if it didn't, this version was freely drawn. B: the other elements (10 maple leaves and crown) are both free-drawn elements that exist on Commons. This image was was taken by myself from File:Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.svg which sources itself from two PD files already here on Commons before it, the flags of both Ontario and Canada. The crown exists here on as File:Crown of Saint Edward.svg as is used on dozens of other files. This is a Keep. The version on English Wikipedia is non-free because it was taken from the Lieutenant Governor's website. They're two very different things. Fry1989 eh? 04:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have created a derivative work. Doing so does not negate or cancel the rights of the original copyright holder. Commons:Derivative works -- Diannaa (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- WHAT COPYRIGHT???. I already told you I took this image from File:Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.svg. The original creator of that image is Greentubing. He released it under a free license with no restrictions, so he has given up any copyright he might have held. And actually his image is a derivative work ITSELF, as I already pointed out but will again since you didn't get it the first time. He took the shield from our SVG flag of Ontario, he took the maple leaves from our SVG flag of Canada, and the crown is File:Crown of Saint Edward.svg. All of those elements are elso free. There IS NO copyright. Just because this resembles the image from the LG's website, does not make it crown copyrighted. Also when I uploaded this image, I used DerivativeFX, which automatically attributes the original creator of what ever image I am using to create a new one, which you would know if you just read the infobox of this file. Fry1989 eh? 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Greentubing does not own the copyright on the flag of the Province of Ontario, and he is thus in no position to release it to the public domain. The question is whether or not flags and symbols of Canada are under copyright, and whether or not the images from which you have created derivative works are under copyright.
There is some information at w:en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems#Copyright on emblem definitions which says in part "Emblems of sub-national entities (states of a union, cantons, districts, counties, townships, etc.) may or may not be defined in an official law, code, or regulation. If they are, they are considered to be in the public domain as statutes, laws, and similar official publications are in general not copyrighted. The U.S. Copyright Office applies this even to edicts of sub-national governments or foreign governments.[19] Emblems of official bodies or sub-national entities not defined in such official publications may be copyrighted." So that's the question that needs to be answered. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't want to listen I'm not going to explain it to you again, but don't be surprised when this is kept. There is nothing copyrightable here, every element is pre-existing free Commons content. Fry1989 eh? 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Greentubing does not own the copyright on the flag of the Province of Ontario, and he is thus in no position to release it to the public domain. The question is whether or not flags and symbols of Canada are under copyright, and whether or not the images from which you have created derivative works are under copyright.
- WHAT COPYRIGHT???. I already told you I took this image from File:Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.svg. The original creator of that image is Greentubing. He released it under a free license with no restrictions, so he has given up any copyright he might have held. And actually his image is a derivative work ITSELF, as I already pointed out but will again since you didn't get it the first time. He took the shield from our SVG flag of Ontario, he took the maple leaves from our SVG flag of Canada, and the crown is File:Crown of Saint Edward.svg. All of those elements are elso free. There IS NO copyright. Just because this resembles the image from the LG's website, does not make it crown copyrighted. Also when I uploaded this image, I used DerivativeFX, which automatically attributes the original creator of what ever image I am using to create a new one, which you would know if you just read the infobox of this file. Fry1989 eh? 15:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have created a derivative work. Doing so does not negate or cancel the rights of the original copyright holder. Commons:Derivative works -- Diannaa (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of three photographs for which it is unlikely permission has been secured. The following photographs may also be infringing, though in these cases the third-party images don't appear to be the primary subject of the photographs:
- File:Aniversario Muerte Felipe Camiroaga 04.JPG
- File:Aniversario Muerte Felipe Camiroaga 05.JPG
- File:Aniversario Muerte Felipe Camiroaga 01.JPG
Psychonaut (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sreejithk2000 as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|PH locator map dinagat islands basilisa.svg. Labelling is clearly different. A previous user labelled {{bad name}}. Obviously something not right, but not an exact duplicate, so putting it before the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Decio Mure as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: poor quality and not used on any Wikis - Decio Mure (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Yann (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a low-res duplicate of File:Milano - Obliteratrice per tessere magnetiche su tram jumbo - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 30-dec-2006 - 01.jpg. Nominator/Uploader seems to have missed to state that at his initial request. As it was uploaded >2 years ago, it should be processed as duplicate (old filename preserved as redirect). Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I agree to deletion; I would like to erase the files uploaded by me that are non-sense and I'd like to maintain only the worthy ones Delete --Decio Mure (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes delete the file, it's just a scaled down version of the bigger image. Delete Jerry
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Rybec as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: quality|low resolution Yann (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
copyvio Čtenář (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Permission says copyrighted, but PD tag is below. The PD tag looks dubious. Appears to be a good-faith claim that the image isn't original enough for copyright. DR is probably better than speedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
uso particular Wallace.wtsol (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, unlikely own work with no permission. Low quality and jpeg would indicate it was swiped from a website.
This is the seal for the city of Cairo, Egypt, and a different copy is displayed on http://www.cairo.gov.eg/default.aspx. I'm not sure about the copyright status, but since this is widely used, I'd rather see a DR than speedy. INeverCry 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in the US for statues, so these will need to be uploaded to local projects (where applicable) under fair use.
- File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5371757419).jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5371757541).jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5371758311).jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5372361956).jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5372362034).jpg
- File:Ameerika Ühendriikides visiidil viibiv välisminister Urmas Paet asetas Washingtonis pärja kommunismiohvrite mälestusmärgile (5372362332).jpg
- File:President Bush dedicates the Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg
- File:The Victims of Communism Memorial 2.jpg
- File:The Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg
- File:Victims of Communism Memorial - Washington, D.C..jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Do not deleteI strongly object. The issue has been discussed before and a decision has been reached to keep the pictures as we are talking about a replica. Commons:Deletion requests/File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images. What is disturbing with Wikipedia is that even if a decision had been reached, the persons who disagree keep opening the discussion. Without even mentioning the previous discussion. Afil (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Discussed before, the result is kept. Besides, File:Victims of Communism Memorial - Washington, D.C..jpg is not a panarama actually. :) --User:Wwbread (Open Your Mouth?) 03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment The previous discussions were closed by an admin who was de-adminned after a host of bad closes. The previous keeps are, for all intents and purposes useless, as these discussions are not votes. Many valid concerns were raised in previous DRs but were all but ignored by the closing admin. russavia (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep per previous discussions. Evrik (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no COM:FOP for 3D statues/artwork in the US. These files are therefore non-free, and prohibited on Commons. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in the US for statues. There is no de minimis in either of these photos, as the statue is a central element of the photograph.
- File:9. juunil mälestati Washingtonis Kapitooliumi lähistel asuva memoriaali juures kommunistlike režiimide ohvreid. (5817410991).jpg
- File:President Bush dedicates the Victims of Communism Memorial.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, The primary subject of the image is the former-President of the United States George W. Bush, as subject although a statue is in the background, it is not the primary subject of the image, otherwise all photos with a sculpture in the background need to be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- File:Vladimir Putin 22 February 2000-4.jpg is an example of where we have had to chop out the statue out of photos. The Bush photo is worse because it also includes photos of posters around the image which would also need to be removed as all of the non-free elements together do not give us any de minimis claim. russavia (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per RCLC. Also, I believe the statue itself is a work-for-hire and the statue itself is in the public domain, but Bush is the focus of the image and the statue is de minimis. Evrik (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose deletion per Commons:Deletion requests/File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images, not to mention the previous discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington where similar photos where deleted against the consensus. This is just strong-arming on an issue that has been previously decided many times. It is censorship. There is no such thing as a copyright on a replica statue. Smallbones (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yes there is, it's called a derivative work. ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Unless someone can provide evidence that either the statue was not created as a replica of a public domain work, or that the original that it is a copy of was still under copyright protection. FoP or DW are misleading rationales for deletion, in the case of replicas or otherwise accurate reproductions of other out of copyright, or public domain works. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closing Admin please note - the "opposes" above are intended as "keeps" in this DR. My keep is intended as a possible rationale for undeletion of the previous images in this category that are of a similar nature. Unfortunately I am unable to see them in order to come to that opinion for myself, as the have been deleted. If these recent examples are kept, the closing Admin should consider undeleting the past list of deleted images of any similar nature, so that they can be properly discussed by the interested community? --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is up to those wanting to keep to demonstrate that the designs are in the public domain. Not the other way around. russavia (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- This comment does not make sense. Evrik (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to thank all of those who were so persistent in deleting these photographs against consensus. It gave me a reason to contact Thomas Marsh, and evidence of a clear case of ongoing censorship even on Wikipedia. He has sent me a completed OTRS request, which I have duly submitted, which grants everybody a license to photograph the artwork in its various versions as the "Victim of Communism Memorial" in DC and the "Goddess of Democracy" in San Francisco, Vancouver, Calgary, and in the Newseum in DC. The license is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), which covers the right to photograph the artwork.
See File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG
I do hope that nobody will try to beat a dead horse on this.
I also hope that the deleted files will be restored immediately.
Thank you all for your help.
Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Question Could an OTRS agent please locate this permission and check that it's all OK? If so, the deleted images could be restored. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Permission from the sculptor has been received, see OTRS ticket number 2013050210011398 - Jcb (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Confused. Aren't these statues clones of a copyrighted statue that was destroyed in China? Wouldn't that make them derivatives of a copyrighted work?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- China has FoP: Commons:FOP#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of - Jcb (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The statue itself is still copyvio though. The same as my yellow submarine. I built it as a 3D work from a (possibly) copyrighted 2D work. How is this sculptor's statue not a violation when mine is? His isn't the original and neither is mine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- If a picture of the original sculpture would not have been copyright infringement, how can a picture of the replica infringe the copyright of the original? Jcb (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Academy Award statue is still in copyright. If I make a duplicate and take a picture of it that would violate the copyright of the original in the source country. Images hosted at commons need to be free in source country and the USA. China may deny that the original sculptor has any rights under their law but we should not deny them here. A copyright cannot and should not be taken by any government. It is an inalienable human right for creators worldwide.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- But how about the FoP? China has FoP. Jcb (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Academy Award statue is still in copyright. If I make a duplicate and take a picture of it that would violate the copyright of the original in the source country. Images hosted at commons need to be free in source country and the USA. China may deny that the original sculptor has any rights under their law but we should not deny them here. A copyright cannot and should not be taken by any government. It is an inalienable human right for creators worldwide.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- If a picture of the original sculpture would not have been copyright infringement, how can a picture of the replica infringe the copyright of the original? Jcb (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The statue itself is still copyvio though. The same as my yellow submarine. I built it as a 3D work from a (possibly) copyrighted 2D work. How is this sculptor's statue not a violation when mine is? His isn't the original and neither is mine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hypothetical: A statue is created by an anonymous sculptor in the USA. The statue is destroyed and a clone is made. Can we host images of the clone? Even if it isn't destroyed I still don't think we can. If this were the case we could make 3D computer renderings of copyrighted 3D works and use images of those to circumvent the lack of FOP in the USA. We would just need the permission of the renderer for images and not the original sculptor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- This does not address what I am saying. The country of the original scupture <large>does have FoP</large> - Jcb (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. The USA does not have FOP though. We would need permission from the original sculptor to host any pictures of it that are taken in a country without FOP. We can't host images with the permission of the sculptor of the clones. My yellow sub was created in the UK which has FOP. It was created and rendered by me on my computer in Canada that has FOP. Can we host my yellow sub image here with my permission as creator then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk about beating a dead horse!
It has been decided by consensus several times that there is no practical right of copyright on this statue in China. Rather than recognize the sculptors' right to display, copy, license, sell, etc, the work, the government destroyed the sculpture, censored pictures of it, likely killed or jailed several of its creators. In short they severely censored the sculpture and effectively denied any rights under the their copyright laws to the sculptors. This for a statue that celebrates freedom! Now if we were to say that any statue that has been censored in its home country, cannot be uploaded to Commons because we cannot get the (nonexistent right) license from the creators, we would in effect be saying that any country can censor Commons for works made on its territory. The consensus does not recognize China's right to censor this statue or believe that we have to enforce that censorship here. Please use some common sense.
Now it was argued that the US sculpture was not a simple replica, but a new work, so that permission had to obtained from the US sculptor. That permission has been received. There are no more hoops to jump through. Smallbones (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Files restored. This may be a controversial closure but I believe we are now fully justified in keeping these hosting these images. There are two potential copyrights involved: that of the original Chinese sculptor and that of the creator of the US version. The latter has been dealt with by the licence now noted at OTRS, and to that extent it no longer therefore matters whether the US version is a straight replica of the original or a new copyright work in its own right. The Chinese copyright issue is more complex. The arguments of Canoe1967, above, are perfectly correct, and under normal circumstances we we not be able to host because we would be infringing the local copyright of the original Chinese sculptor. However, in this case, it is clear that the original copyright has been renunciated by the Chinese state, and regardless of China's obligations under international copyright law the local position is that no effective copyright now exits for the original statue in China. Thus, the images are properly licensed under the US copyright and do not infringe any local Chinese copyright, and they can therefore be hosted here under our rules.
It has been suggested that copyright is an inalienable human right for creators worldwide, and that we should not accept that it can be taken away by any government. The fact is that that is done all the time by national governments, who are perfectly free to determine the scope of local copyright rules as they so wish (even when, as here, they fail to comply with international copyright conventions). And, most often, Commons wants governments to restrict the extent of local copyright protections, so that images are freed from excessive copyright claims and are made available for reuse. If we were to consider copyright as an inalienable human right we would have to delete all images that national governments have decreed to be free under local copyright laws contrary to what we (arbitrarily) consider the scope of that putative 'inalienable right' to be. That would make for a very interesting discussion, but would mean a radical change to our rules and is a clearly matter for another day. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by C-World records (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images/logos
INeverCry 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pasitronic (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - no educational value
INeverCry 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster, there is already a cropped version Morning ☼ (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello Morning Sunshine, Why nominated for deletion ? this is the original image. Should not be deleted. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This could be cropped and/or blurred, so that the poster is de minimis. Yann (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello everyone, I have a comment on this talk. Because if someone deletes this original image, and where to be a source of cropped image. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster, there is already a cropped version Morning ☼ (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello Morning Sunshine, Why nominated for deletion ? this is the original image. Should not be deleted. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 10:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This could be cropped and/or blurred, so that the poster is de minimis. Yann (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello everyone, I have a comment on this talk. Because if someone deletes this original image, and where to be a source of cropped image. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 22:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted poster, there is already a cropped version Morning ☼ (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello Morning Sunshine, Why nominated for deletion ? this is the original image. Should not be deleted. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 10:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- This could be cropped and/or blurred, so that the poster is de minimis. Yann (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Hello everyone, I have a comment on this talk. Because if someone deletes this original image, and where to be a source of cropped image. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Es innecesaria dado que existe 
AleMaster23 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep It is the version with logo and the logo is legal.--Principal adjoint (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Si, la imagen es legal, pero tecnicamente es un duplicado de la anterior, y una de las dos debería ser borada. AleMaster23 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Non ce n'est pas un duplicata puisque le logo est une différence entre les versions.--Principal adjoint (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No lo se, dejemos la decisión a un administrador o quien conozca que hay que haer en esta situación. AleMaster23 (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
