Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Google maps Evano1van (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 07:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope Narayan (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Considering also File talk:Pope francis at 13 march 2013.jpg, I tried to localize this image via http://busca.ebc.com.br - but without success (using "papa" or "Francisco", selecting "Todos os veículos" and reducing the hits clicking on "Fotos"). Obs I.: The license text of {{Agência Brasil}} is outdated: Not all material published via Agência Brasil is cc-by-3.0-br. See Template talk:Agência Brasil#Please update the template for details. Obs. II: High wiki use. Gunnex (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Probably from the photographic service of L'Osservatore Romano. Diário do Litoral, in the article 'Bem-humorado, papa argentino diz a fiéis que veio "do fim do mundo"', links to this image with the filename papa-cred_osservatore_vaticano.jpg. It seems to be a cropped version of papah.jpg via http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%252FHome as a thumbnail image for the article "Habemus Papam". (Strangely, the article itself uses a different image instead.) Bottom of page says "All rights reserved. All credits reserved." Photographer at the same angle seems to have taken cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg via http://www.photogallery.va/content/photogallery/en/franciscus.html with "Copyright Photographic Service L'Osservatore Romano" at the bottom. --Closeapple (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)- Delete as Closeapple-- Bertrand GRONDIN
→ (Talk) 05:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC) - Delete: Probably screenshot of TV News live --Lepido (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep We can trust the agencys licence statement until there is a claim of the real copyright-holder. --Itu (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Only when it's well documented and when there is a track record of an effort to distinguish their own media, from the media from other sources they routinely reuse. --Dereckson (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: We don't have any proof the agency is the copyright holder. Dereckson (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
redirect is not needed Hasenläufer (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably copyvio from http://wagnernandor.com/wncv.htm Stefan4 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio is obvious Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, the source is here. Jaqen (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded the wrong Image Justin14. Justin14 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
consistent parts of copyrighted Microsoft software, not free (could be cropped, though) Ricordisamoa 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I cropped out the offensive parts. Next time, please just ask, no need to file for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright infringement MattMoissa (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 09:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Promotional file, no educational value. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
A collage created by using screenshots of a Spanish TV show. Copyright violation. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
SPAM in watermark. The Banner (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a central location for deletion requests coming from this user's uploads. It's suggested further comments be made there. – JBarta (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the spam watermark. This photo may now be used. Joris (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: thx @Joris McZusatz (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
spam in watermark, posted with the intent of spamming. See: (in Dutch)[1] The Banner (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1302 Eindhoven - HTC 045.jpg – JBarta (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a central location for deletion requests coming from this user's uploads. It's suggested further comments be made there. – JBarta (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the spam watermark, this picturen can now be used on Wikipedia. Joris (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: thx @Joris McZusatz (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
A global 2-edit-user = 1 copyvio in Commons. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution (Facebook?), missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is paranoia-this is my photo. G1a21 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't get it. I use my "self portrait" in lieu of an actual picture of myself. Any problem with that? Also, I drew that picture, so no copyright issues.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out-of-scope self-created image of aspiring rapper. No realistic educational use. Rrburke (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Photo taken on 11 December 2007 by Pierre Metivier (all rights reserved). See https://secure.flickr.com/photos/feuilllu/2102466399/in/set-72157603432132831. --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-promotion image. Jespinos (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Uploader requested, the changes have been applied to the original files so this is no longer needed. Fry1989 eh? 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unclear why this Flickr has the license for a rugby club shield. User's other contributions are other Flickrwashed copyrighted images. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Substantially too simple for {{PD-ineligible}}; it's your typical copyrighted logo, and we don't have evidence of a free license or PD release. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
File is copyrighted. Craigboy (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
File is copyrighted. Craigboy (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF data, caption in image indicates this is a screen-shot of presumably copyright TV show or similar An optimist on the run! 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Image is found all over the internet. Every other file uploaded to date by this user is copyrighted and/or non-free. – JBarta (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. So far, every image seems to have been copied from elsewhere, and he has ignored efforts to get him to verify permission - he was informed how on his En Wikipedia talk page a few days ago; see en:User_talk:Nikhil_Bains. I've nominated this one for speedy, since he doesn't even assert permission, but in case it is declined am voicing my opinion here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope personal artwork; unused orphan DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
very poor quality, unrealistically useful, out of scope orphan DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
poor quality low resolution out of scope orphan DrKiernan (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Trademarked logo above threshold of originality, Nothing to indicate WWE released this as CC Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Given likley date of image, I find the Own work claim a little hard to belive. This is also tagged as non-free on English Wikipedia with a different source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of Originality concern, Greece. Tagged as non-free logo at English Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Threhsold of originality concern as this is a corporate logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work" -- who owns the copyright to the image in the background? -- In use on WP:JA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from http://www.gcland.com/bacchus/ --Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Similar (lower res) to http://www.caralicante.com/alicante_hotels.htm = http://www.caralicante.com/images/nh-alicante.jpg or http://www.bancotravel.com/descripcion-hoteles/esp/alicante/29/7602/hotel-nh-alicante#image-preview = http://www.bancotravel.com/images/hoteles/N/NHALICANTEALICANTE/foto-hotel-20.jpg (for both: last modified: 2009) Gunnex (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Can easily become a wikitable or HTML table. Sinnamon (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement. moogsi (blah) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - self promotion/private picture Narayan (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - self promotion/private picture Narayan (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - self promotion/private picture Narayan (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. 4x uploads = 1x Flickrvio, 1x grabbed from Google Maps. Gunnex (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of user. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe this image needs OTRS permission. It's taken from mb-world.ru —Bill william comptonTalk 12:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, the webiste of The vanishing Cultures Project states "All Rights Reserved" . The user uploaded many other pictures like this as well, they should be deleted as well in case of copyright violation. Narayan (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unremarkable person (at least not recognisable). Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm unable to find who this person is. Ghits for "Keytash Akbari" don't help. We have to assume that the person in this photo is unremarkable and thus this image is unencyclopaedic, unless uploader provides a proper description. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of user. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of user. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- self promotion Narayan (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Fichier que je souhaite modifier et réadapté / réecrire à l'aide des nombreuses sources que j'ai à ma disposition. En cours....Merci
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake Msoares (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Questionable notability of the subject but I'm not going there as it's currently in use on the Romanian Wikipedia. Well, this image seems to be a cropped version of one available on timpul.md. Uploader and subject have same name, so I'm guessing she can arrange an OTRS ticket. Otherwise, this file needs to be deleted on the ground of copyright violation. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Fondation Carmignac. Needs OTRS permission. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of uploader. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Promotional image, currently not in use on any Wikimedia project. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture of user. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 14:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 14:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no clear evidence provided that the author is dead for at least 70 (plus) years High Contrast (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
used only in spam page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
image used only in spam page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted poster/wallpaper, not the uploader's work Ytoyoda (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Horribly blurry, there are lots better photos of the Renault Stepway mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No FOP for statues in the US, artist died in 1995 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}}-fail (this is a photo) and even {{PD-Old}} most unlikely, because this photo was made in 1987 during es:Jornada Mundial de la Juventud 1987. {{PD-AR-Photo}} would work (1987+25=2012) but without knowing the author = speculative (this may be also a photo by a non-Argentine photographer and published for the first time outside of Argentina). Gunnex (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Promo-only upload, unused, see also User:Nepalmountainflights Trijnsteltalk 19:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted violation and currently unused 68.38.60.219 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
License in the blog states NC (same applies to File:Mario Bofill (2).jpg) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it, as private artwork out of scope.--88.217.81.137 12:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get all these Gryffindor hypothetical creations deleted for some time now (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gryffindor, Commons:Deletion requests/French colonial flags without French flag cantons uploaded by Gryffindor) and nothing seems to work. AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I'm aware. They need to go, they're fake, he has never been able to justify or source them. Fry1989 eh? 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pure speculation, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Norway. 84.61.176.189 20:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep-not a building, not applicable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed not a building, and buildings are the only things you can take a photo of. From 1978.[2] --Stefan4 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pôl-Roux is born in 1926. Copyright violation. 90.44.111.195 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pôl-Roux is born in 1926. Copyright violation. 90.44.111.195 21:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pôl-Roux is born in 1926. Copyright violation. 90.44.111.195 21:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pôl-Roux is born in 1926. Copyright violation. 90.44.111.195 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal/vanity photo. Out of scope. P199 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
School logos and crests are typically copyright, and it's unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. I have taken a copy for fair use on en.wiki. Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There was no census of India in 2010, and if this is a typo then what chance that the data itself has been mapped correctly? Sitush (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 15#File:Richa bhadra.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a printed publication. You see the same kind of "dots" that you see in newspapers and if you look above the palm tree, you can see a few letters which are presumably part of the text on the other side of the paper. Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I looked at it more closely ... you're probably right ... go ahead and speedy delete it. --UserB (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs) --Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)}}
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant {{Copyvio}} by copyvio-only uploader, grabbed from https://twitter.com/YleniaGandiaSh/status/251376696496898048/photo/1/large. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from the internet. Possible copyright violation. Steven P. (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Already in the net. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Please use {{Copyvio}} next time. Thibaut120094 (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/television/2015-10-17/ylenia-confiesa-su-mayor-drama-tuvo-problemas-alimenticios-de-joven_1063298/ Alelapenya (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Source not available and no flickrreview passed Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Explicit advertizing - This user has uploaded over 55,000s pictures that all have advertizing for his website as a watermark. Please remove all of those uploaded pictures. Whaledad (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I might mention that a LOT of images get uploaded here that contain a watermark explicitly advertising a web site. The difference being maybe just in the sheer volume of images from a single uploader. To the uploader of these images... watermarks, for all practical purposes, are not allowed on Commons. Though whether by design or by neglect, Commons is rather weak and unclear in telling you this. Your "offense" is as much our fault as yours, in my opinion. Also, many many hours of editor time is going to be wasted removing all those watermarks. There are better ways to attribute yourself other than plastering a watermark all over uploaded images. And arguably, those images are less likely to be used anywhere simply because they do contain such a watermark. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Communication with the uploader has already happened and he has flat-out refused to upload without watermark. His stateed intent is to advertize his website and he says he has already seen an increase in visitorship due to this campaign. It should be noted that none of these images are used in articles on nl.wikipeida, but they do appear in {commonscat} links at the bottom of many (city) pages. This may ultimately force us to remove these sisterwiki templates from those pages. Whaledad (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone wishes to get a watermark removed from an image, they can make a request at the Graphics Lab here or here. For prompt action, just request watermark removal from images that are in use... don't request removal from all or large numbers. Anyone is welcome to go through his contributions and see where he may have added images. Also, it's not inconceivable that the uploader is fibbing about visits to his website increasing, or possibly the weekly visits have gone from 5 to 8 simply because a few editors here are curious about the guy who uploaded all those watermarked images to Commons. – JBarta (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the sake of reference and organization, I added all his uploads to Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks which is a subcategory of Category:Images with watermarks. – JBarta (talk)
- Communication with the uploader has already happened and he has flat-out refused to upload without watermark. His stateed intent is to advertize his website and he says he has already seen an increase in visitorship due to this campaign. It should be noted that none of these images are used in articles on nl.wikipeida, but they do appear in {commonscat} links at the bottom of many (city) pages. This may ultimately force us to remove these sisterwiki templates from those pages. Whaledad (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Whaledad: You mention "55,000" pictures. I count 1,452. Where are you getting this number? – JBarta (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess 55k images with spam-watermarks, of which 1452 from this guy.. But in fact, all 55k should be un-watermarked or removed. The Banner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Jbarta, sorry got my numbers mixed up. near 1500 for this guy. As for the 55,000 total watermarked images: some of them may be "legitimate" watermarks, as in: the original picture, drawing, or whatever had a watermark. What is happening with MicroT, is that he has found a way to spam Wikimedia that isn't covered in clear rules and regulations. The fact that most of his pictures aren't used in any articles is of no interest. The appear abundantly when clicking the Commonscat sisterlink (that's also why he tries to Overcat!). The guy is 100% spammer and should be treated as such. If he gets away with this, many others will follow shortly. Whaledad (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess 55k images with spam-watermarks, of which 1452 from this guy.. But in fact, all 55k should be un-watermarked or removed. The Banner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 051.JPG – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a central location for deletion requests coming from this user's uploads. It's suggested further comments be made there. – JBarta (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (this file) - I've removed the watermark on this file.--Rockfang (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: an inappropriate watermark is a reason to remove the watermark, not a reason to delete the file. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination cancelled as item was cleaned. (Not sure how to really cancel.) Whaledad (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Watermark is not a deletion reason, unless it renders the image completely unusable and there's no way to fix it. We can always try to do something about watermarks; the files should be kept so that someone can alter it someday (if desired). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as indicated by Clindberg and others, watermarks are no reason to file deletion requests and in particular not if they so easily removable as in this case. Thanks to Rockfang who has removed the watermark. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Syria flag is the red flag, and this picture is an insult to syria GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This was the official flag of Syria from 1932-1958 and again from 1961-1963. If you find national history "insulting", too bad for you. Perceived insults are not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree completely with Fry1989. We have a lot more wacky and useless flag maps than this one... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Sinnamon (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I Didn't say i don't like itGhiathArodaki (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You said you found it insulting, ergo you don't like it. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I Didn't say i don't like itGhiathArodaki (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No , i mean insulting "Degrading".11:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're the only one who finds this insulting, so you don't like it. If you liked it, you wouldn't find it insulting. Trying to change it to "degrading" means nothing, you are trying to attach a negativity to this image, if you liked the image, you wouldn't care. Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
again , not because i don;t like it , this isn't syria flag now , i don't know what age this image represent , but i8f it represent this age , it's degrading and insulting syriaGhiathArodaki (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid rationale for deletion. Mono 19:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Personal offence has no bearing on the fact that this is an accurate flag map of Syria in the 1940s-60s moogsi (blah) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
this is not the syrian flag 162.121.244.36 06:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Again, please see the request above. Invalid reason to delete. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep -- It was the Syrian flag from 1946-1958 and from 1961-1963, shown in the corresponding borders. The date "1932" in the image title is unfortunately flakey (the file should probably be renamed to change 1932 to 1946), but there's nothing wrong with this file as a basic historical flag map... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Read the dates in captions. Fry1989 eh? 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. In use. Yann (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This picture shows a very high insult for syria, as the red flag is a symbol of the country, and the picture show the replacment of it, the country is using one flag as Official. GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, image is being used to show joint control in some articles. Perceived insult is not a reason for deletion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Perceived insults are not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- It shows the chosen emblems of both sides, just like File:Flag_of_Libya_(2011_combined).svg did... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: That an image may be offensive to some is no reason for deletion moogsi (blah) 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No scope, this is retaliation against [3] and [4], which GhiathArodaki perceives as insulting to Syria. Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh Yeah, Great job , Every thing for israel , You know i know it that your going to make thisGhiathArodaki (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- You yourself admitted on my talk page you just uploaded this as retaliation because you feel insulted by File:Flag-map of Syria (1932-1958, 1961-1963).svg, even though that file is historically correct. That was infact the official flag of Syria during those dates. This has nothing to do with Israel, but if you must know, I despise Israel, it is a war crimes state that sponsors terrorism around the world and has ghettoized and terrorized the Palestinian people for 50 years. I am NOT a supporter of Israel and never will be. That doesn't change the fact your stupid useless retaliatory file has no scope, no purpose of any kind other then to retaliate against a historically correct file that you're butt-hurt over. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Talk good to me, That is first , Second , I'm Not Retaliation or something , This is not a historical thing , when the syria flag is combined with a dirty flag like this , and it's not a historical thing when a dirty flag is put in the map of Syria , And it's not historical if a dirty israeli flag is on araibian flag , The files are not a historical correct , that what is Minus for us, a non from our country people like you controlling our history and writing it as they likeGhiathArodaki (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It's briefly amusing for a few seconds, but ultimately it's a rather crude insult image based on an Iranian government propaganda line conspiracy theory which probably not even the Iranian government propaganda-pushers themselves really believe... GhiathArodaki -- I don't have a very high opinion of the Assads, but when I uploaded File:Flag_of_Syria_(2011_combined).svg and File:Flag-map_of_Syria_(1932-1958,_1961-1963).svg, it was really not with the intention of insulting anybody. Who do you think File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg insults? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Iraq? GhiathArodaki (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Judging by AnonMoos' revelation, this should be kept, but regarded as pure propaganda, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the variations of posters depicting Jews as octopi with their arms around the world, and the accusation against Israel of being a "war crimes state." ----DanTD (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually , every political thing happens in this world cause it is masons , who support israel , and israel is the hand of what happens , israel is not a war crime state , actually they are not a state , but a crimes.GhiathArodaki (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Really, GhiathArodaki? You actually think File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg is an insult to Iraq? This was the official flag of Iraq at the time. ----DanTD (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- i didn't say it's insulting , but I answered your question , and i don't know iraq history that much ,and i haven't seen that flag in my life , for this image , i thought you mean syria after the revolution , i want you to discuss the image .GhiathArodaki (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Judging by AnonMoos' revelation, this should be kept, but regarded as pure propaganda, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the variations of posters depicting Jews as octopi with their arms around the world, and the accusation against Israel of being a "war crimes state." ----DanTD (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Right here. And you're wrong about Masons causing all the trouble in the world, not to mention your ridiculous notions about Israel, which is strictly fascist propaganda. ----DanTD (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- First , I'm NAZI , If you like , it's better than Fascist ? , Second I'm Araibian , Third , Israel toke a land that is not for it , Fourth , you know the terror of israel ? , Killing people for no reason ? , what is the fault of those children ? , Are they killing israeli people ? GhiathArodaki (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- First, is your problem. Second, is no issue. Third is a lie, and fourth, what you call "the terror of Israel" is in reality Israel defending themselves against Arab and Muslim extremists who have been attacking them before the country could even re-establish itself. ----DanTD (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Atteacked them , because they were making terror on them , and taking a land that is not for themGhiathArodaki (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Israel IS a war crimes state, they attack first all the time, engage in collective punishment, use weapons in civilian areas that are considered a war crime to use by the United Nations, and are illegally settling in lands that don't belong to them. As for this file, it was purely in retaliation for the two DRs I listed when I originally nominated this. It doesn't belong here. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - per historical context. It reflects sentiments and propaganda that have been expressed by some parties in this conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- WHAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT? It's already been made very very clear the only reason this was uploaded is because the user was insulted by File:Flag of Syria (2011 combined).svg and File:Flag-map of Syria (1932-1958, 1961-1963).svg, and when he was told that perceived insults arfe not a reason to delete a file, he uploaded this in retaliation. There is zero historical context, and zero scope for this file. Fry1989 eh? 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen such flags elsewhere. He didn't make it up. It is historically significant as war-time propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say he made it up, I said he only uploaded it as retaliation because he was insulted, for no real reason whatsoever, by two files that have been on Commons for ages. Commons is not the place for retaliation and half-truths and conspiracy theories. Fry1989 eh? 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- The reason for the upload is irrelevant to whether it should stay or not. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Where have you seen this flag used elsewhere? If you could point to something resembling a reliable source for such a use, that would certainly be worthy of consideration. Otherwise, it should be deleted as outside of project scope. Wikipedia and Commons are not the place to fight the Israeli-Arab conflict. --UserB (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say he made it up, I said he only uploaded it as retaliation because he was insulted, for no real reason whatsoever, by two files that have been on Commons for ages. Commons is not the place for retaliation and half-truths and conspiracy theories. Fry1989 eh? 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen such flags elsewhere. He didn't make it up. It is historically significant as war-time propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- WHAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT? It's already been made very very clear the only reason this was uploaded is because the user was insulted by File:Flag of Syria (2011 combined).svg and File:Flag-map of Syria (1932-1958, 1961-1963).svg, and when he was told that perceived insults arfe not a reason to delete a file, he uploaded this in retaliation. There is zero historical context, and zero scope for this file. Fry1989 eh? 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as outside project scope unless/until someone can prove that this is an actual flag actually used somewhere. --UserB (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Please, don't turn commons into a battlefield Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The following rationale was copied from the file page: Für die von mir selbst hochgeladene unvollständige Seite (Abriss rechts oben) soll eine vollständige Seite gleichen Namens, die ich mittlerweile erhalten habe, hochgeladen werden. ABrocke (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC) --moogsi (blah) 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion Request for "File:Die Gartenlaube (1860) 457.jpg" --ABrocke (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Warum klappt das eigentlich nicht mit dem Löschen? Wen müsste ich denn ansprechen, um die Angelegenheit zu beschleunigen? --ABrocke (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Bitte einfach den Link "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" unten auf der Dateibschreibungsseite benutzen. JuTa 01:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Bente Dahl Radikale Venstre (RV) Danmark. Nordiska radets session i Reykjavik 2010.jpg Colin (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Er, that link is the same file, not a duplicate. If there is a duplicate, it's easier to use {{Duplicate}} rather than go to the hassle of a DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. I think I got this one confused. Colin (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. JuTa 11:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Remplaced by File:Antonio Nariño, joven.png Lepsyleon (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 10:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please correctly license this file. The operation of recording a voice is a technical operation, and doesn't create copyright. So, Tdxiang isn't the copyright holder. What the Vatican copyright law says about official talk recordings? I guess, such a formal speak doesn't meet the originality threshold, as it's the spoken version of a public domain text. But what about droits voisins? Dereckson (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the law is anything like in the USA then it is the person who put the work in tangible form (i.e. the one who recorded the voice) who is the copyright holder, not the one who was "making the voice". Of course, if we were to assume that the "voice" was previously recorded on paper, than the content of it has copyright, which is violated by recording and re-transmitting. Sinnamon (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: and linked the history of the en: article. JuTa 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This was published in 1930 so it is not automatically in the public domain in the United States, which is required for uploads at Commons. Furthermore the author of the book is most likely not the graphical artist of the cover image. The image may still be copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Another source lists it as 1900, how do we know that the uploader has the date of publication right? El Jardín de los Suplicios (1900)
- The novel may origignally have been published in 1900 but the cover design is obviously from a later edition. I'm not an expert in history of the arts but I've seen a lot of books from both areas and this doesn't look like a 1900s illustration. Anyhow, it's the uploader's responsibility to get their facts right, so Octawiusz should provide proper evidence that this is a free image. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per discusison JuTa 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral, although I am not certain if these indeed fall under copyright protection. The whole category will have to go, if this is the case. Pundit (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:IDENT: picture of an identifiable person (a child) in a private location without any proof of consent by their parents or other responsible people Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC) PS: same applies to File:Girl suarez (frag).jpg
- Keep I see the nature of the picture to be sufficient proof that it is not somebody making a candid shot through the window. I would also point out that this image is used and is without a good replacement. Sinnamon (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: border case JuTa 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the uploader of this photo. I am changing speedy delete to regular delete, as per instructions, but basically I think this photo should stay in the Commons unless I learn otherwise. This was a check mailed to me, not fished off the web. I photographed it. As far as I know, there is no copyright violation involved -- a check image is not an example of something that is subject to copyright rules as far as I can understand it. It is a fraudulent check, not a real one, based on information from Citibank. It was sent by a scammer but it is unlikely that the name on the signature is the scammer -- just some name used by the scammer. The photo is useful for demonstrating about Internet scams used in places like Craigslist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Another possibility: I could upload a second image, but with the name in the signature box wiped out -- would this be an agreeable compromise? or are there other issues and what are they?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not seeing where the alleged copyright violation is. I don't believe business forms of this prosaic nature can be copyrighted. There no Citobank logo, just their lettering, and we know that that is not copyrightable. I don't see where there is a copyright issue at all. There might have been a privacy issue if the check had been legitimate, but as the result of fraudulent activity, I don't believe privacy is a concern. I would like the nominator, User:McGeddon, to be specific about what the perceived problem with this image is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support BMK.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the somewhat generic template. I assumed that a photograph of a designed bank cheque (or a close forgery, or even a wildly original forgery!) would be considered a representation of a 2D artwork rather than the uploader's "own work", and this seemed backed up by the paucity of other images of bank cheques on Commons. (The Wikipedia article on cheques can only manage a fake "Bank of Wiki" mockup as a clear illustration of a modern cheque.) As the cheque itself says, it's not simply text, there's at least a designed red-blue backing pattern, which I'd assume was enough to bump it over the threshold of originality.
- The other, unrelated, concern is that we don't know where the scammer lifted the signature or the bank numbers from - they could be made up, but they could be somebody's actual account details, which it would seem irresponsible to republish. --McGeddon (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting; I had never thought about such stuff before. How about if I removed the numbers and the signature and uploaded that -- would that be sufficient to allay concerns? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also I tried to upload the photo with numbers and signature erased, but somehow I can not find it -- probably some snafu with the uploading software.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- And the red-blue backing pattern is some kind of security code, invisible to the photo, but which someone can check perhaps by holding the check up to a light source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I photograph buildings, which are copyrightable but can be photographed under US law. When I do, the photograph is my "own work", regardless of the status of the building (most old one are in the public domain). If the fake check Tom shot was not copyrightable -- and I don't think it was, for the reasons I gave above -- than the photograph of it is indeed his "own work", as much as if he shot a picture of a fire hydrant or an ant. Therefore his license was correct.
As for the underlying issue, the design aspects of the check do not, in my opinion, rise to the level of copyrightable artwork. There may be a trademark issue with the "Citibank" writing, but not a copyright one, since it is just lettering, and not distinctive enough in design to be copyrighted.
Tom, one thing you should consider is that as you remove more and more elements of the check - signature, routing number, etc. - it probably starts to get to the point where it's debatable whether having it in the repository serves any educational or encyclopedic purpose. I'd say that's a judgment call for you to make, at first, although others will no doubt weigh in later. At this point, though, unless someone can make a stronger counter-argument, I don't think there are any copyright concerns about the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I photograph buildings, which are copyrightable but can be photographed under US law. When I do, the photograph is my "own work", regardless of the status of the building (most old one are in the public domain). If the fake check Tom shot was not copyrightable -- and I don't think it was, for the reasons I gave above -- than the photograph of it is indeed his "own work", as much as if he shot a picture of a fire hydrant or an ant. Therefore his license was correct.
- Keep Yes BMK you persuaded me; I had been on the fence but I think you're right although when it comes to issues such as copyrights and trademarks, my sense it is complex and I will probably never know all the ins and outs. About the issue of how much information to scrub off the check -- yes, it is possible I am deleting too much, but I think the image is still usable. I had been hoping to use the photo for the Wikipedia article "Confidence trick" but there may be other places where a check image could be used, particularly if there are not many such images in the Commons to begin with.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: but hided first version for privacy reasons. JuTa 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like this file deleted, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricetads (talk • contribs) 2013-03-15T22:18:37 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request + out of COM:SCOPE. JuTa 23:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dharmadhyaksha as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|1=Kevindani mar adentro.jpg. However, this is a cropped image of other file, so cannot be speedied. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as unused duplcate of File:Kevindani mar adentro.jpg JuTa 07:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pedromartinss (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios and unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvios or out of scope.
Jespinos (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:IMG 0347 3 copy3.jpg
- File:IMG 0347 3 copy2.jpg
- File:IMG 0347 3 copy.jpg
- File:Steele2012.jpg
- File:Steeleinslovakia2.tiff
- File:Steeleinslovakia.tiff
Jespinos (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anuaradnan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work.
- File:Jose Maria Callejon playing for Real Madrid CF.jpg
- File:Jose Maria Callejon playing for Real Madrid.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images. Uploader has history of copyvios.
- File:Ochagavia.jpg
- File:Uglessich.jpg
- File:TrincheraCeleste.jpg
- File:Monasterio0410.jpg
- File:OhivsUC.jpg
- File:1202419378 f.jpg
- File:Yerson-Opazo.jpg
- File:Barriga.jpg
- File:Ohi1956.jpg
- File:Ohi1955-.jpg
- File:Ohi1969.jpg
- File:Fusion-241x300.jpg
- File:Sebastiaan-Caespedes-Reyes.jpg
- File:Santiago Lizana Lizana.jpg
- File:Julio-alberto-barroso.jpg
- File:Cristian-cuevas-jara.jpg
- File:Claudio-meneses-cordero.jpg
- File:Cesar-fuentes-gonzalez.jpg
- File:Benjamin-vidal-allendes.jpg
- File:Alejandro-eduardo-lopez.jpg
- File:Tomas-lizana-jeria.jpg
- File:Carlos-escobar-ortiz.jpg
- File:Eduardo-miranda-rios.jpg
- File:Rrojasovelar.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iamsenadam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
Jespinos (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pepsipenny (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations: one has been deleted by me - the other ones by different users High Contrast (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TomasBHsola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, File:Vs8+1.jpg with mysterious watermark. For File:FundadoresdeBH.jpg (grabbed from - example - here): Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Vs8+1.jpg
- File:BenhurvsamARgos.jpg
- File:Coliseo del Sur.jpg
- File:CamisetaTitular.jpg
- File:FundadoresdeBH.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the license on the source website - http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet_png - is sufficient for us. He says, "This image (or modified versions of it) may be used in any work where the publication as a whole is released under one of the following free content, copyleft licenses ... [GFDL and CC-BY-SA] ... Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects. What he does NOT say is, "you may use this image in accordance with the terms of the GFDL" or something like that - he just says you can include it in the publication. That sounds like a more restrictive permission than is permitted here. UserB (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![17 File:Ingeniero jose trinidad becerril creador de la doctrina "los ingenieros rorros".jpg](#File:Ingeniero_jose_trinidad_becerril_creador_de_la_doctrina_"los_ingenieros_rorros".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_Danmark._Nordiska_radets_session_i_Reykjavik_2010.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
_(proposal).svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Syria_(2011_combined).svg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Syria_(1932-1958,_1961-1963).svg){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_457.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_457.jpg){kind=link}
_Danmark._Nordiska_radets_session_i_Reykjavik_2010.jpg){kind=link}
_Danmark._Nordiska_radets_session_i_Reykjavik_2010.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Academic and Non-commercial Use[hide]
[edit]
This image may be used freely in any academic work where the author(s) do not receive a fee for their efforts and/or in any non-commercial work, provided that in either case these conditions are met: You acknowledge the author of this image and Global Warming Art alongside the image. The recommended format is "Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art", but this may be varied to conform with a publication's style. If and where practical, you also include a link and/or reference to this specific description page: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet_png Such references may appear either alongside the image, or in a separate section where other source material is acknowledged. Qualified academic and non-commercial projects may also be eligible to receive higher resolution and/or vector graphics forms of this image upon request.
Free Content Use (GFDL / CC-BY-SA)[hide]
[edit]
This image (or modified versions of it) may be used in any work where the publication as a whole is released under one of the following free content, copyleft licenses: The GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or Later. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License Version 2.5 or Later. Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects.
Commercial Use[hide]
[edit]
Commercial publishers who wish to use this image under terms other than those given above, may obtain a license to do so by contacting licensing@globalwarmingart.com. If you do so, please provide the following information: Name of the image or images required Name, nature, and target audience of the publication it is intended to appear in Approximate size of the print run or distribution Region and/or language of distribution Any additional rights requested
Rights are usually provided based on a one-time fee which is at or below market rates. In most cases, higher resolution and/or vector graphics versions of the image are available at no additional cost.
It is also requested, but not required, that authors send Global Warming Art a copy of any significant publications that include the use of this image. Those interested in commercial and/or higher quality reproduction may also wish to refer to the information for professional republishers. Strannik27 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- All you did is copy and paste the text from their site here. You can ignore the first and third sections as neither of those apply. The only thing that matters is whether their GFDL/CC-BY-SA grant is legally sufficient. My contention is that it is not. Saying, "you can include this image in your GFDL publication" is not the same as saying "I publish this image in accordance with the GFDL". Wikipedia is GFDL (or CC-BY-SA or whatever it is this week). When people send us images and say "you can use this image on Wikipedia", we delete those images as not having a free enough permission. I don't see the difference between that and this. --UserB (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects. - Wikimedia is not a commercial project, and copied to the violation of the law may be from the original source. The main thing that he resolved/allowed owner for placement here. Strannik27 (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I am not a linguist, but to me "you can publish this work in a GFDL work" and "you can republish this work under GFDL" is the same thing. There is a difference between an incompatible or a restrictive licence and saying the same thing in different words. Sinnamon (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- True or false: images that are uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia" are deleted? I suspect you will agree, true. True or false: images uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia or Commons" are deleted? I suspect you will again agree, true. True or false: images uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia, Commons, Wikia, RationalWiki, or CreationWiki" are deleted? Again, I assume you will agree, true. The license they have given is no different than these restrictive licenses - they just have a much longer list of acceptable publications. But allowing you to include it in a GFDL publication is NOT the same as publishing the image under the terms of the GFDL. Quite the contrary, we have plenty of images on Wikipedia and Commons that are not published under the GFDL nor anything resembling the GFDL, even though the text-based contributions are GFDL. --UserB (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is a false analogy, let me demonstrate why (I shall use the same argument structure as you have used). What would you say to the licence that says "You cannot place 'non-commercial' restriction on the work, that this one is a part of"? I would bet you would accept such a licence. What about a licence that says "You must publish any collective work under a free licence"? You would probably again accept such a licence. Now what about the licence that says "The licence of the composite work must be compatible with GFDL"? Again, you would have hard time arguing that such a file should be deleted. This licence says "The aggregate work must be GFDL and only GFDL". If you want to delete this work because of that, you are undermining the whole idea of a viral licence. The creator does have a right to demand that the collective work is distributed under whatever licence, and if such a licence happens to be free (and GFDL definitely is) such a file is permitted per COM:L.
- I will, however, recognise that there is a possibility to read the statement to mean that until the work is published in any collective work, it is not yet under a free licence. But in this context this is an unenforceable restriction, since any category page or a page showing new uploads will automatically become an aggregate work, and thus placing this particular file in GFDL as a part of it. Thus, even if you read the statement as "it is not yet GFDL", it has become GFDL microseconds after being uploaded here. Sinnamon (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're arguing that permission to publish in a GFDL collection automatically makes it GFDL upon such publication. But the fact that we have non-GFDL images in our GFDL collection necessarily means that it is possible to publish something in a GFDL collection under some license other than the GFDL. Several users have published their own work here under, for example, a {{BSD}} license. That act didn't suddenly endow their image with a GFDL permission. --UserB (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that you are confusing linking to the image, and a collective work. And I must apologise, perhaps my example has actually made such an error more likely, it [the example] was a bad one. Personally, I believe that putting BSD or Art Libre image in a Wikipedia article is a form of a copyright violation, but MW lawyers think that it isn't, so it should be allowed. So one would need to make a collage using this file, and then extract it from there... It would appear GFDL after that. However, I think it's an overkill, because I doubt that anybody would seriously read this restriction in such a manner. Sinnamon (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't realize it, but the owner of this site and author of that image is en:User:Dragons flight. (Not outing anyone - he self-identifies on his user page.) I am posting a message at his en talk page about this ... it could be settled very easily if he would be willing to simply affirm the GFDL license. --UserB (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that you are confusing linking to the image, and a collective work. And I must apologise, perhaps my example has actually made such an error more likely, it [the example] was a bad one. Personally, I believe that putting BSD or Art Libre image in a Wikipedia article is a form of a copyright violation, but MW lawyers think that it isn't, so it should be allowed. So one would need to make a collage using this file, and then extract it from there... It would appear GFDL after that. However, I think it's an overkill, because I doubt that anybody would seriously read this restriction in such a manner. Sinnamon (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're arguing that permission to publish in a GFDL collection automatically makes it GFDL upon such publication. But the fact that we have non-GFDL images in our GFDL collection necessarily means that it is possible to publish something in a GFDL collection under some license other than the GFDL. Several users have published their own work here under, for example, a {{BSD}} license. That act didn't suddenly endow their image with a GFDL permission. --UserB (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- True or false: images that are uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia" are deleted? I suspect you will agree, true. True or false: images uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia or Commons" are deleted? I suspect you will again agree, true. True or false: images uploaded saying "you can use this image on Wikipedia, Commons, Wikia, RationalWiki, or CreationWiki" are deleted? Again, I assume you will agree, true. The license they have given is no different than these restrictive licenses - they just have a much longer list of acceptable publications. But allowing you to include it in a GFDL publication is NOT the same as publishing the image under the terms of the GFDL. Quite the contrary, we have plenty of images on Wikipedia and Commons that are not published under the GFDL nor anything resembling the GFDL, even though the text-based contributions are GFDL. --UserB (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Long explanation. Both the GNU and Creative Commons have offered interpretations of how the "viral" provisions of their licenses function (GFDL and CC-BY-SA, in particular) that are actually stronger than most people realize. Each license has provisions for combining licensed works with other "separate and independent" documents in an "aggregation" (to use the GFDL language). If the materials are really "separate and independent", then it doesn't matter that some are GFDL, some are CC-BY, and some are copyright restricted. For example, independent articles in a scientific journal could easily be regarded as separate and independent works. Each article stands alone, and in general articles in the same issue do not reference or build off of each other. However, in the GNU view, using GFDL images to illustrate a related piece of text does not constitute an aggregation. Rather they consider such a use to be a derivative use and to trigger the copyleft clauses of the GFDL. To give an example of this logic, suppose I have an article discussing the beauty of Angkor Wat along with accompanying photographs. In that case the text aids in understanding the images and the images aid in understanding the text. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and consequently those parts can not qualify as "separate and independent". In the GNU opinion, this implies that combined work is not an "aggregation" but rather a derivative, subject to copyleft provisions on the totality of the work. If you illustrate text with a GFDL image, then under the restrictive GNU interpretation you would be required to release the whole combined work (text + images) under the GFDL (or reach some other agreement with the copyright holders). In their reading, the same ought to apply if you take GFDL text and add other images, you then have an obligation to ensure the images can also be released under the GFDL. The language is different, but Creative Commons has made effectively similar statements about the viral properties of their Share-Alike license. In their view it is a "strong" copyleft that is intended to grab hold of the associated text if CC-BY-SA images are used to illustrate a document. (This is in contrast to a "weak" copyleft, where the copyleft provisions only apply to works that works that are immediately derivative and not to larger works that copyleft material might simply be used to illustrate or otherwise incorporated in. Incidentally, at several points in their history, Creative Commons has explicitly discussed releasing both "strong" and "weak" versions of CC-BY-SA, but ultimately the "strong" language is the only one they have published.)
- Now, a bit of context is needed. Both GNU and Creative Commons have considered their copyleft licenses to be aggressively viral; however, the Wikimedia Foundation has never acted on that interpretation. In general, the WMF has always taken the position that mixing text and images with different licenses is fine. Hence, the WMF implicitly regards the copyleft provisions as being of the "weak" variety. Personally, I tend to think that a plain reading of the text of the licenses favors the "strong" copyleft interpretation, but there is enough ambiguity in the wording and more than enough complexities to copyright law that it can be regarded as an unsettled issue. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever had to address whether the copyleft provisions of these licenses are truly "weak" or "strong", and hence no one really knows whether it is okay to mix GFDL images with non-GFDL text and vice versa. That said, I do know of cases where publishers have used GFDL or CC-BY-SA images to illustrate their works, and later been sent demands that the entire work be released under the viral license. In at least some cases, the publishers have either capitulated to those licensing requests or paid off the copyright holders to settle.
- So, the bottom line is this. The copyleft license authors basically intended their licenses to be strongly viral. In particular, in their view, GFDL images are only licensed to appear in GFDL documents, etc. The WMF has willfully ignored that interpretation, preferring to believe that the "aggregation" provisions are strong enough to cover mixing and matching images with text, even though that's not what the license authors had in mind. Given that there is no current court guidance on this issue, I tend to personally advise people that GFDL images should only be used within GFDL works and CC-BY-SA images should only be used in CC-BY-SA works. That's the only way one can really be sure that people won't get in trouble with these mixing and matching issues in the future. Encouraging people to mix and match, as the WMF does, could actually get reusers into legal predicaments down the line.
- So, yes, I consider this image (and the various other images on my site) to be licensed under the GFDL and under CC-BY-SA (and also separately licensed for non-commercial use). However, when it comes to writing my own website, I am going to advise people that sticking GFDL and CC-BY-SA images in works is potentially a bad idea unless the entire work can be covered by these copyleft licenses. If one wants to be safe, CC-BY-SA images should only be used in CC-BY-SA works and similarly for GFDL images. Dragons flight (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Withdrawn based on the above. --UserB (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
All the files are taken from chriscottrell.com. Needs OTRS permission.
- File:ChrisCottrellHeadshot.jpeg
- File:ChrisCottrellDeanMartin.jpg
- File:ChrisCottrellPress.jpg
- File:ChrisCottrellBio.jpg
- File:ChrisCottrell.jpg
—Bill william comptonTalk 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS received and processed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS relieved.—Bill william comptonTalk 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nicolasp21 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos are usually copyrighted, which restricts their use on Commons.
- File:Escudo Club Ferro Carril Oeste (General Pico).png
- File:Club Mercedes.png
- File:Escudo grande Club Huracán (San Rafael).PNG
- File:Escudo Club Huracán (San Rafael).png
- File:Arsenal Fútbol Club.PNG
- File:Club Atlético Aldosivi.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Bill william comptonTalk 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|File:Suresh-final.jpg Different coloration, however, both of same approximate asize and both of lower quality, ony one is required — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: different colors JuTa 21:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This picture has not being used for 4 years. I think it should be removed, because it is not necessary. It is only rubbish. Ppitbull505 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This picture has not being used for 4 years. I think it should be removed, because it is not necessary. It is only rubbish. 159.205.69.97 12:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins_of_Canada
[edit]The design of Canadian coins are the copyright of the Royal Canadian Mint, so images taken of coins from 1961 and after (Crown copyright is 50 years) cannot be hosted on Commons.
Kobac (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Kobac, why is it that that images of coins that are copyrighted by the Royal Canadian Mint can not be hosted on the Commons? And do you know if there is another place to host them on Wikipedia? Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, read, please, the Commons:Licensing firstly.
- Probably you can move them to local Wikipedias, but I'm not sure. Kobac (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom and Commons:Currency#Canada--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the coins with a design first published after 1961, per Commons:Currency#Canada. Keep the coins with a design first published before 1962 in the category, unless the photo is not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. We already went through this last year at Commons:Deletion requests/Coins of Canada. We have to have another debate about it? Zap the things already. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted, as even the one with an OTRS-ticket had a "permission" from a private email address. Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Canadian coins are copyrighted. See COM:CUR#Canada.
- File:1-cent-2006.jpg
- File:Canada $100 Gold Coin 1983 Newfoundland. KM 139..jpg
- File:Canada $100 Gold Coin 1983. Obverse by Arnold Machin. KM 139.jpg
- File:Image-1-dollar-1988.jpg
- File:Image-10-cents-1968.jpg
- File:Image-2-dollars-1996.jpg
- File:Image-25-cents-1966.jpg
- File:Image-5-cents-1968.jpg
- File:Image-50-cents-1965.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Per COM:CUR Canada, currencies of Canada are copyrighted unless they have been published for 50 years.
- File:1972 Canada 1 cent (5195373568).jpg
- File:1976 Canada Cent (5197699637).jpg
- File:1977 Canada 10 cents (5198403999).jpg
- File:1982 Canada 1 cent (5645627003).jpg
- File:1987 Canada 5 cents (5222830658).jpg
- File:2006 Canada 25 cents (5203940648).jpg
- File:2019 $50 Silver Maple Leaf in Motion - REV - Glen Loates.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-1-dollar-common-loon-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-1-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:50centreverse.png
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS O.jpg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (78774181).jpeg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (79225889).jpeg
- File:JN4.jpg
- File:Loose Change (4806711541).jpg
- File:Terryfoxloonie.jpg
- File:Treasure (11578075).jpeg
- File:Treasure (11578079).jpeg
- File:Treasure (11578081).jpeg
- File:Керлінг на монеті.png
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep
- File:1972 Canada 1 cent (5195373568).jpg
- File:1976 Canada Cent (5197699637).jpg
- File:1977 Canada 10 cents (5198403999).jpg
- File:1982 Canada 1 cent (5645627003).jpg
- File:1987 Canada 5 cents (5222830658).jpg
- File:2006 Canada 25 cents (5203940648).jpg
The nominator doesn't even bother to read the description pages. Read the description: design used in 1937. Count: 1937+50=1987. 1987<2021. This DR is sloppy, like other recent DRs. Other users put effort, time and care into uploading files, researching the information and describing the files. The least the nominator could do is read the descriptions. The indiscriminate nomination of everything without research is harmful.
Delete
- File:2019 $50 Silver Maple Leaf in Motion - REV - Glen Loates.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-1-dollar-common-loon-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-1-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:50centreverse.png
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS O.jpg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (78774181).jpeg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (79225889).jpeg
- File:JN4.jpg
- File:Terryfoxloonie.jpg
- File:Керлінг на монеті.png: Recent (post-1970) designs, which is reason enough to delete, although many of those files also look possibly copied from other sites.
Delete
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS A.jpg
The nomination reason is wrong. The designs are ok. But most of the images uploaded by this user look suspiciously like copies of images from official websites or from numismatics websites. For example, the 5 cents is there, the one dollar is there, etc. Probably not the own work of the uploader.
Delete
Mix of coins with old and recent designs, but the coins near the front of the pictures have recent ones.
Neutral about File:Treasure (11578075).jpeg: No apparent copyright problem but not really a useful image. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Kept and deleted per discussion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Failed de minimis. Canadian coins are main object in these images.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ox1997cow (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: kept 1st because coin images are blurred, deleted 2nd as out of scope and 3rd per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
no in use; there's larger and SVG version of this file 149.156.172.74 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: replaced by File:Tbilisi City Seal.svg JuTa 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of the Cook Islands
[edit]There is no evidence that the coins are in the public domain or that they are freely licensed. The licence claims only apply to the photographic aspects of the images. Some coins contain no visible date and might be old. One image also contains a copyrighted image from w:Leopold the Cat.
- File:Auagptpd1.png
- File:Auagptpd2.png
- File:Cook fej.jpg
- File:Cook i.jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1990 $50 Silver Coin Champlain, Canada.jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1991 $50 Silver Coin Cusco, Peru..jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1991 $50 Silver Coin Robert Fulton.jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1992 $50 Silver Coin Lewis & Clark.jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1992 $50 Silver Coin Vitus Bering.jpg
- File:Cook Islands 1993 $50 Silver Coin Pinzon Captains.jpg
- File:Cook isles 2 dollars.jpg
- File:Cookdollar.jpg
- File:Money.Cook Islands.coin (Photo by DAVID HOLT, 2012) (1).jpg
- File:Money.Cook Islands.coin (Photo by DAVID HOLT, 2012).jpg
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Juliette Clovis is born in 1978. Copyright violation. 82.120.33.47 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 02:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
We have SVGs ot this. Fry1989 eh? 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: very very low quality. JuTa 03:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Verdolaga Querido (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying around 15 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different panoramio-accounts, blogs etc., files mostly related to the Argentine football clube es:Club Ferro Carril Oeste) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing or inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Historical photos (like File:Antorcha.jpg or File:WaterpoloFCO.jpg, apparently scanned from unknown source) may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Carlos Mehrstedt.jpg
- File:Hockey fco.jpg
- File:Cancha hockey fco.jpg
- File:Ajedrez FCO.jpg
- File:Natación FCO.jpg
- File:WaterpoloFCO.jpg
- File:Carrera Serafín Ferro.jpg
- File:Antorcha FCO.jpg
- File:Antorcha.jpg
- File:Hinchada ferro.jpg
- File:Ferro ochenta.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Lots of files with problems:
- According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, you can't use {{PD-GermanGov}} for artistic works, but a lot of these files are artistic works with that template.
- Some are photos of 3D works without any licence from the photographer.
- Some are listed as own work although they seem to be scans or photos of someone else's work.
Several of these were previously deleted on English Wikipedia for the same reason.
- File:Badge StaffCol SU.pdf
- File:Med Faithfol Serv NPA big-mr.pdf
- File:Med Faithfol Serv NPA mr-B.pdf
- File:Pilot PerformLevel 1.pdf
- File:Dist mil-pilot GDR med2.JPG
- File:Dist Mil-Pilot GDR bar.pdf
Stefan4 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
These images are artistic works tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}. According to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, you can't use {{PD-GermanGov}} for artistic works.
Stefan4 (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fonseca 07 (talk · contribs)
[edit]11 uploads = 8 files with copyright problems. These 3 are the remaining ones. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing or inconsistent EXIF + COM:PRP: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so these ones can't be believed either.
Gunnex (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Singer and song writer, biography and image File:GUILLE BAREA.jpg. Queeg (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you raising this at DR? If you are going to nominate files, please give a reason that makes sense. --Fæ (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
After today identifying today +15 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different panoramio-/flickr-accounts, skyscrapercity.com-users, blogs etc.) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. For File:Antigua Plaza de la Villa.JPG, File:Teatro Sogamoso (1929).jpg etc. (all declared as "pwn work"): Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Hospital Regional de Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Teatro Sogamoso (1929).jpg
- File:Antigua Plaza de la Villa.JPG
- File:Plaza de la Villa en 1893.JPG
- File:Cámara de Comercio de Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Teatro Sogamoso.png
- File:Paraninfo U.P.T.C. Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Entrada uptc.jpg
- File:Supermercados La Canasta.jpg
- File:Exito Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Laguna siscunsí.jpg
- File:Terminal de transportes de Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Autopista Sogamoso - Bogotá.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Carrefour Sogamoso.jpg
- File:Pansoberciu.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This picture shows a very strong Insult to both Palestine and Jordan GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Perceived insults are not a reason for deletion. It's very questionable scope however, is a reason for deletion. For the record, I find this image disgusting, but any perceived insult I may have is never a reason for deleting a file. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a stupid file for several reasons, one of them because it's actually not about the "land of Israel" at all, but basically about "Revisionist" aspirations in the 1920s. It and File:Flag map of the land of Palestine.svg should be deleted together, or both of them should be given accurate and non-inflammatory names... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
the land of palestine file , is like your syrian flag map of the green flag , if you claim that the other file is historical , so this is too.GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is horrible nationalist position, which cannot be defended, but can be seen. The mention of revisionism is exactly why it should be kept. Sinnamon (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, the revisionism of this file is exactly why it should go. Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Reina Sofia con Antonio montiel.jpg
- File:Pintor realista.jpg
- File:Antonio montiel.jpg
- File:- - ANTONIO MONTIEL - AUTOGRAFO - -.jpg
- File:H8mj4j3cfc5etxl6kfkc.jpg
- File:Antoniomontiel thumb.jpg
- File:00023935-constrain-450x300.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Pintor Antonio montiel.jpg
- File:PINTOR ANTONIO MONTIEL.jpg
- File:Pintor antonio montiel.jpg
- File:Antonio montiel pintor.png
- File:Pintor realista.JPG
- File:Antonio-montiel111-290x280.jpg
- File:Antonio montiel.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Antonio Montiel.jpg
- File:Pintor Antonio Montiel.PNG
- File:Antoniio montiel.jpg
- File:Antonio Montiel.PNG
- File:Antonio montiel.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
better quality here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angelico,_incontro_tra_san_francesco_e_san_domenico.jpg --Gambo7 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Photographer/owner of this image has changed his mind, and will not give permission for its use. Sorry for the trouble. Koffeed (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
|
File:POL gmina Lubień flag.svg is a vector version of this file.
File:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/15 → File:POL gmina Lubień flag.svg
For more information, see Help:SVG. |
 |
Deleted -FASTILY 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
File:POL gmina Lubień COA.svg is a vector version of this file.
File:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/15 → File:POL gmina Lubień COA.svg
For more information, see Help:SVG. |
 |
- Delete Even though there is Commons:Transition to SVG (with which I completely agree) and that nominator's reason is not a reason for deletion, I feel that in this particular case GIF is a significantly worse file. Because GIF has existed for so long I would argue that a redirect should be placed to SVG to allow previous versions of Wikipedia articles that linked to the file in the past to not be damaged. Sinnamon (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Croatian coat of arms. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, this one is different. Animal on the right is not black, but yellow. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That can be changed on the SVG if there is a source that the animal is the wrong colour. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, actually, i dont know which color is right... Maybe someone should ask on en wiki WikiProject Croatia. Maybe they know... --WhiteWriter speaks 00:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That can be changed on the SVG if there is a source that the animal is the wrong colour. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Unlcear which is correct, so keep both . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Re-nominatiing. The keep reason is not really relevant. If the uploader has a source for a different colour, he can provide it and it will be applied to the SVG. If the uploader doesn't have a source, this is a personal augmentation and out of scope. The section in question is the coat of arms of Slavonia, which is emblazoned "a marten proper courant". Proper means as it appears, and the animal is brown. Also the Croatian Government's main site shows the animal brown as on the SVG. We don't need to keep an un-used, un-sourced JPG. Fry1989 eh? 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Source is mb-world.ru and Mikhail Vorobyev holds the copyrights. All needs OTRS permission, even though the uploader claims to be associated with this site, or at least his/her name suggests so.
- File:Deyian Falls.jpg
- File:Водопад Детьян.jpg
- File:Женщины и дети народности Яо.jpg
- File:Китаянка в национальном костюме.jpg
- File:Народность Яо.jpg
- File:Китайские фотографы.jpg
- File:Китайцы двадцатого века.jpg
- File:Веселый китаец.jpg
- File:Ночной Шанхай.jpg
- File:Женщина народности Яо.jpg
- File:Мост Дождя и Ветра.jpg
- File:Китайский народ.jpg
—Bill william comptonTalk 12:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment – I've asked uploader to provide a confirmation mail.—Bill william comptonTalk 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment – I sent the confirmation mail at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org last week. But I have no any answer. --Mb-world (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately permissions-commons is very backlogged right now. If you go to the #wikimedia-otrs channel on IRC, or go to the Commons:OTRS noticeboard we can try and figure out what ticket it is and be of assistance. --Rschen7754 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: To be restored upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY 22:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Spirit Level Slides
[edit]copyvios - source website states that these images are from a 2009 book - no explicit license is given regarding commercial use or derivatives, etc - also not sure why the "Equality Trust" would have the rights to images from a book published by Penguin
- File:Capture 14032013 205218.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205223.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205225.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205227.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205229.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205232.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205234.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205236.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205238.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205240.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205242.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205244.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205246.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205248.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205250.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205252.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205253.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205255.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205257.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205300.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205301.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205303.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205305.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205307.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205309.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205311.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205314.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205315.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205317.jpg
- File:Capture 14032013 205319.jpg
INeverCry 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly missing adequate evidence of permission. No reason given to suggest that the copyright holder has published their presentation under a CC license. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose Nomination reason is not correct: "Reason for the nomination: copyvios - source website states that these images are from a 2009 book - no explicit license is given regarding commercial use or derivatives, etc" because "The slides (and the graphs contained within them) can be downloaded and used freely without permission, on condition you acknowledge their source: The Spirit Level, Wilkinson & Pickett, Penguin 2009." [5]
- The editor's (Wilkinson and Pickett) are also co-founders and members of the Equality Trust [6]
- Used freely as in: used freely to stamp a CC License to their images, a CC lisence that says Attribution required". Only thing they want is that they get acknowledged (that is: get attributed). The essay Commons:Credit line fits 100% to my opinion.
- I think I should have used the Template:Attribution instead ("This license template is for media files which only require attribution."). Any comments? --Pasixxxx (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete It is true that the source says:
- "The slides (and the graphs contained within them) can be downloaded and used freely without permission, on condition you acknowledge their source: The Spirit Level, Wilkinson & Pickett, Penguin 2009."
However that quote is out of context, as the previous sentence says:
- "We hope you will use them in talks, lectures or discussion groups to help increase people's understanding of the effects of inequality."
This is a license for a particular use, not the general license we require. It also says nothing about commercial use or derivative works. The source site has an explicit copyright notice and I am sure the book from which they are taken does also. The Equality Trust appear to be sophisticated people and Penguin Books certainly understands copyright. If they had intended to give a general license such as CC-BY, they would have done so. We must assume that the restrictions are deliberate.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose "This is a license for a particular use...", no it's not they are just hoping there. "... such as CC-BY, they would have done so ..." CC-BY adds the requirement that "when lying, mention it" --Pasixxxx (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete: I don't think "we hope that" or "we strongly recommend that" constitute restrictions, however:
- The slides (and the graphs contained within them) can be downloaded and used freely without permission
How may the images be "used"? Can you sell them? Modify them? It's not enough. {{Attribution}} does not match the statement on the website, which lacks either details of any restrictions, or an explicit declaration of PD status --moogsi (blah) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose "Used freely without permission, on condition you acknowledge their source". This implies free to modify them if they are acknowledged, well this could also mean that the modifier can lie by modifying the information (regression data) in the slides. Wikipedia article on cc-by says that "Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation", so the CC-BY license adds the requirement that "lying needs to be mentioned". The change to {{Attribution}} was a bad idea so let's keep the {{Cc-by-3.0}}, it adds "lying needs to be mentioned" to the "Used freely without permission, on condition you acknowledge their source". And keep the images, don't delete them --Pasixxxx (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also note that the deleted item above, File:Capture 14032013 205232.jpg, contains three Time magazine covers and five other images. While I am reasonably certain that Penguin got a license from Time, Inc. for the use of the covers in the book, it is highly unlikely that Penguin's license from Time includes broader use. This raises the question of whether any of the other material is actually subject to third party copyrights that The Equality Trust has not bothered to consider. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The release says "The slides (and the graphs contained within them) can be downloaded and used freely without permission". Now, admittedly that does not specifically mention commercial use or derivatives, but it does say "used freely" and we should read that using the normal dictionary meaning of those words. Being allowed to use something "freely" means I think that no restrictions have been imposed (apart from attribution). This is in my judgement a general free licence, and the words "We hope you will use them in talks, lectures or discussion groups to help increase people's understanding of the effects of inequality" do not amount to an enforceable restriction on the generality of that licence.
The copyright owner is not in this case the sort of person we often come across - a naive individual who has used the word "freely" without the least understanding of what it means in the copyright context. This is a sophisticated outfit who have published under a well-known imprint.
The files are currently tagged {{Cc-by-3.0}}, which is definitely wrong, as no such licence has been used by the copyright owner. The tag {{Attribution}} does appear to be correct, and the reference within that to commercial uses and derivatives simply makes clear what the general licence has included by implication. If anyone wants to put this absolutely and finally beyond doubt, I suggest making an approach to the copyright owners to ask.
The image File:Capture 14032013 205232.jpg, which contains reproductions of Time magazine covers, has already been deleted.
--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Microtoerisme (talk · contribs)
[edit]User Microtoerisme has uploaded 1,452 files since Nov 2012, nearly all containing a prominent watermark promoting his website. It should also be noted that the uploader's stated primary intention[7](in dutch) is to use Wikimedia Commons to advertise his web site.
See Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks
Recently a few of these files have been individually nominated for deletion with the reason generally being "advertising". I thought it useful to point those deletion requests (and future ones) to this central location for discussion and resolution. – JBarta (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Files of this uploader that have been individually nominated for deletion:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:1302 Eindhoven - HTC 045.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 051.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 054.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:1208 Stavoren 09.JPG (added 3/21/13)
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1302_Eindhoven_-_HTC_092.jpg (added 3/21/13)DR for different reason. – JBarta (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: uploader has been blocked for one week. – JBarta (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am hesitant to support the deletion of all these files because they are freely licensed and may fall into COM:SCOPE. I do agree that this user's practice is spammy and should be discouraged, but I do wonder if it might be worth it to run some sort of a bot to crop out the watermark and keep the images? Mono 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- If a bot can crop out the watermarks on the images, that would be a quick and minimally damaging solution. Then in the future, on an individual basis, editors will still have the option to re-remove the watermark without cropping if they wish, as the watermarked originals will remain available in the history. – JBarta (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, if I might add, the word "discouraged" is precisely part of the problem. Uploaders think watermarks are "discouraged" because that's what we tell them. Maybe we should find a perfectly clear way to tell uploaders such as this one DON'T DO IT. Then again, a similar problem (misuse of "own work") was met with the reponse (I'm paraphrasing) Uploaders won't listen anyway and we want to be popular like Facebook and make things easy to upload and bad uploads are just maintenance and if other editors don't want to do maintenance then maybe they're just lazy. Everyone has their perspective I guess. – JBarta (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, most (if not all) of the images this user uploaded have spam messages in Dutch, like these: "Deze afbeelding wordt u aangeboden door de Stichting Microtoerisme Inzicht - www.microtoerisme.nl" ("This image is offered to you by the Microtourism Insight Foundation - www.microtoerisme.nl"), or "Op www.microtoerisme.nl kunt u gratis stadswandelingen, audiotours en fietsroutes downloaden. Ook kunt u honderden video's en 10.000+ foto's bekijken. En dagelijks een fotoblog." ("On www.microtoerisme.nl you can download free city walks, audio tours en cycling routes. You can also watch hundreds of videos and 10.000+ photos. And every day a photo blog.". Regardless the outcome of the watermarks discussion, this clearly spammy messages should imo be removed from all his uploads, which shouldn't be too hard for a bot. Wutsje 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have requested that this user be unblocked as the one week block does not appear in accordance to the Blocking policy. Uploading watermarked images is not spamming. If these are ear-marked in a suitable category, a batch action can remove the watermarks. The moral rights that this uploader is concerned about are protected by attribution in the CC licence. This should be patiently explained so that the licence clearly includes the attribution they are looking for (at the moment, the examples I find have no proper attribution in the licence). I would be happy to amend the licences by bot, should the attribution statement be agreed, and all the images to be fixed put in one large backlog category. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand what this case is about. This user is not "concerned about moral rights", and it isn't about attribution. This user is spamming his website. He is spamming on the images, he is spamming in the descriptions of the images, he is spamming in the EXIF information. And even worse, when asked, he said he admitted he is uploading to promote his website, and draw more visitors th his website. He also said he will not stop spamming, and he said he is going to continue spamming, even though he was asked not to. LeeGer (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete A clear COM:ADVERT violation. I recommend to delete all uploads from Microtoerisme and permban the useraccount as this is the name of the website. To be clear: I have no problem when Jan Geerling under his own name creates an account and reuploads his photographs of the Netherlands, but without the watermarks, and without the advertising statement on the pages and with a clean EXIF tag. As he has all the originals, he would be the most suitable person to reupload these 1452 images. It is not the job of the community to clean up the mess that Microtoerisme created in the first place. Hans Erren (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are quoting a shortcut (ADVERT) to a sentence within a guideline, that itself entirely relies on an interpretation of a subsection of scope. The key point of that paragraph in the scope official policy is that content should realistically be of an educational purpose. All these images fit that description, so there is no tangible rationale for a deletion here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It was and is this user's stated intent to spam using these images. Even though the images are not used in any articles (as far as I know), they do appear when clicking {commonscat} sisterlinks in articles (again: user's intent to make this happen was clearly shown by his consistent over-catting, even after being asked several times not to do that). To avoid this type of abuse growing into epidemic, we need to give a clear signal by deleting all images and blocking the user indefinitely. Per Hans Erren, user can create a new account and resubmit clean versions of the images, with regular source annotation. It's unrealistic to have the community clean up 1452 images. Whaledad (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it happens, it is not unrealistic to have a bot do a standard size trim off 1,452 files. Of course, were we to be able to work with this project contributor to reach a common understanding of how best to use the attribution licence, rather than finding ways to punish them, they may well choose to release unwatermarked versions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- User:VanBuren has already tried to convince the user to submit pictures without watermark. Microtoerisme's response was: "Het plaatsen van foto's zonder watermerk, waar jij mij toe probeert over te halen, is voor mij niet "lonend" ("Upload of pictures without watermark, which you try to persuade me to do, would have no payback for me."), showing again that his SOLE purpose in uploading these pictures is to draw visitors to his website. Whaledad (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'll quite happily add the website link as a legally required attribution to the 1,400+ images. That's is perfectly well within Commons norms for attribution rather than spam and Microtoerisme might see this as useful reward for their work. As the website provides free downloadable material for the public, this seems like a great win-win. If this uploader still wants to help out with Commons content by making unwatermarked photographs available after the block and criticism, then that would be super.
- I suggest using
{{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=Gratis stadswandelingen & fietsroutes - http://www.microtoerisme.nl}}. - Folks seem to be importing a big argument from another project to Commons, the system works a lot better if that does not happen as Commons is quite different in terms of policies and norms compared to other Wikimedia projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to try where VanBuren "failed" (knowing VanBuren he did anything and everything possible). Microtoerisme's email address can be found at [8].
- I would object to an advertzing line in the attribution statement. I would accept "
{{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=www.microtoerisme.nl}}", but not "{{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=Gratis stadswandelingen & fietsroutes - http://www.microtoerisme.nl}}". - As for importing problems from other projects. In this case the problem lies on commons (which is a COMMON service to all Wikimedia projects) and cannot be solved at nl.wikipedia. It was first discussed there, as the problem became visible there. The problem can only be solved at commons. Whaledad (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Done Licences have had the attribution added as suggested. --Fæ (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The intent of the uploader was bad (though we might mention he's hardly alone), but once the watermarks are removed, the images are fine. I think a mass crop is the best solution. If editors wish to go back later and re-remove the watermark without cropping, the original watermarked version will be in the history for them to do so. The advertising blurb from the image description pages should also be removed. In other words, the images are here, they are decent images and we should try to make them acceptable. On the issue of blocking the uploader, I think his block should be indefinite and the lifting of it conditional on his agreeing that any future uploads will be without watermarks, without the advertising blurb, without over catting and in a manner generally acceptable to the community. If he can do this, we should forgive and welcome him back. If he cannot agree or reverts to his old bad ways, he should be blocked permanently. – JBarta (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how easy/hard it is to automatically perform this cropping, and how long it would take. If a considerable amount of time is involved, I would plead for a "de-cat" in the meantime, to avoid those pictures showing up on {commonscat} sister links until they are cleaned. Whaledad (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused about this business of "{commonscat} sister links". Could you explain that to me further so I can see what you're talking about? – JBarta (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm suppressing visible categories. It's a bit of a hack but nicely reversible, so long as these images are in a handy category when we want to find them to reverse this suppression. (Commonscat is a way of indicating on various Wikipedias where images related to the topic can be found in a Commons category. Suppressing the visible categories makes these effectively vanish for the moment.) --Fæ (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still confused. Why would you "supress" what appears to be a perfectly proper category? – JBarta (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, nevermind... I think I understand. it's a punitive thing to try and make these images "disappear" from various categories. Personally I think that's a little silly, overdoing things and it just creates more work because someone has to go back and "unsupress" them. I think we should eliminate improper categories but leave the proper ones alone. – JBarta (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not "punitive", but spam avoidance. Because the categorie listing provides the free advertizing (spam) that the user intented. I'm glad that Fae found a hack that's reversible. One more thing: the last 300 or so files were uploaded with "InZicht" (the other name of the website and the organization) as the first part of the file name. Is there a bulk way to change that too? Whaledad (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm going AFK - leave a note on my talk page explaining what is needed, and I could deal with it tomorrow at some point unless someone gets on to it before me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's somewhat common to have uploader information in the filename. Before changing it, it would be good to check if such a thing is actually contrary to Commons guidelines. After all, we don't want to completely smite the uploader. He does have a legitimate right to get credit for his work. – JBarta (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not "punitive", but spam avoidance. Because the categorie listing provides the free advertizing (spam) that the user intented. I'm glad that Fae found a hack that's reversible. One more thing: the last 300 or so files were uploaded with "InZicht" (the other name of the website and the organization) as the first part of the file name. Is there a bulk way to change that too? Whaledad (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still confused. Why would you "supress" what appears to be a perfectly proper category? – JBarta (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, nevermind... I think I understand. it's a punitive thing to try and make these images "disappear" from various categories. Personally I think that's a little silly, overdoing things and it just creates more work because someone has to go back and "unsupress" them. I think we should eliminate improper categories but leave the proper ones alone. – JBarta (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- To the closing admin: (obviously not me) There is no consensus to unblock the uploader at this time, but please check the uploader's talk page or wait for the block to expire before closing this DR. The block I applied will expire Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:37:28 GMT. Mono 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Re: cropping: I think there IS a consensus for cropping off the offending watermarks en masse. If someone has the technical ability to accomplish this, I would suggest he go ahead and do it. – JBarta (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps CropBot is an option, I don't have any experience with it. Hans Erren (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Jbarta - the images are fine, annoying watermarks aside. If we can find a way to crop out the watermarks within a reasonable amount of time, then we should keep them (otherwise I may reconsider delete). If the uploader continues to upload images with watermarks after his block has expired, I also agree that he should then be blocked for a much longer time, if not indefinitely. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Skeezix1000; this is a recurring problem for which we need indeed a systematic approach. All images in category: Sint Petrus Banden (Oirschot) have been cropped manually. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep but crop. I run a few mass cropping efforts in the past and might be able to help with this, however at the moment I am a little bit swamped. It would be easier and we would end up with better images, if uploaded would reupload the original images --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Several attempts have been made to convince the uploader to upload non-watermarked image, which he refused. He also refuses to come and discuss this here (but he IS reading this). At one point he told VanBuren he was willing to upload pictures with a white border, where the watermark was in the border so we could more easily crop them. It's not clear to me where the gain would be for him, as it would only cost us some work, but the end result would be clean images (and no advertizing for him). At this point he has made it known that he won't be uploading anything anymore, even when his block expires. It's too bad a better understanding with this person could not be reached. Whaledad (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. unblock, and stop living in the stone age, or stoning age as the case has become. No sooner can you point to a watermarked image than someone makes the watermark disappear, wake the fuck up people.
- Watermarks are becoming so trivial as software advances that a bot can be written to remove them and no doubt cause complaining that someone ripped out all the watermarks from some list of images without first getting consensus and blah blah f**king blah.
- Argue if it is this or this at your leisure later. It's not block/delete first and then discuss at village pump later and maybe you were right but if you fucked the project don't worry about it cause that's ok, otherwise everyone would be blocked for everything until admins learn everything and images are proved ok, now how the F can you do that if you can't see the images.
- handle the project with care lest it become as failed as en.wiki Penyulap ☏ 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll respond to one of your points... as one who has removed at least hundreds of watermarks. Most watermarks require a certain amount of time and effort to remove. Some may be cropped out, but that's about the limit of what a bot might do. The idea that a bot can be written to remove all but the most trivial and croppable watermarks is nonsense. In the end, watermark removal requires (wastes?) a LOT of editor effort. – JBarta (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Penyulap, it is so refreshing to hear someone so eloquently arguing their clear thoughts. I would suggest, that perhaps instead of arguing about how easy it is to write watermark removal bot, you should just write one so we can "stop living in the stone age". --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite busy redrawing some horsies on a carousel right now TOP priority work for a barnstar :)
- Penyulap, it is so refreshing to hear someone so eloquently arguing their clear thoughts. I would suggest, that perhaps instead of arguing about how easy it is to write watermark removal bot, you should just write one so we can "stop living in the stone age". --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll respond to one of your points... as one who has removed at least hundreds of watermarks. Most watermarks require a certain amount of time and effort to remove. Some may be cropped out, but that's about the limit of what a bot might do. The idea that a bot can be written to remove all but the most trivial and croppable watermarks is nonsense. In the end, watermark removal requires (wastes?) a LOT of editor effort. – JBarta (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- handle the project with care lest it become as failed as en.wiki Penyulap ☏ 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- plus, there is the issue of whether people will ever stop blocking and nuking watermarked images in the first place.
- There are enough images to do botwork on, but who is to say they won't be deleted first ? what is the point of writing a bot for images that are deleted from view but still on the server ? is someone going to make my bot a sysop without making me one ? and like as if that idea isn't the 5th horse of the apocalypse right there. Maybe I should make an attack-an-admin-bot which makes thousands of requests for undelete at the same time, because the images will, won't, will, won't, will, won't, will, won't, be deleted, it's all been decided hasn't it ? By the time admins stop fucking with contributors who upload these useful images will there be any that come back ?
- All this argument bullshit should be at the village pump working out watermark policy rather than randomly blocking and unblocking, like someone got a hand free from the straight-jacket and is making quick work of the project.
- As for suggesting something can't be done, prove it. The addition is in the exact same place in every image, it's a total nobrainer to write a plugin, or a script (maybe I could learn that part in a day). In the meantime as I am busy drawing, can you goto the Bot discussion groups and ask someone there to please take over drawing the carousel for me, it looks like this one but totally different. When someone from the bot groups can take this drawing job off my hands for a few moments, I'll pop over there and write a bot, ok ?
- Plus, on the subject of me operating a bot, which you bring up, last time I got a bot flag for a bot, someone couldn't work out who was not operating it because it was indef blocked, and they had to use checkuser to work out who was not operating the indef blocked bot. That didn't go well as complaining about abuse of tools just gets your ass blocked forever, that did not concern me in the least. What concerned me was the phone call. I lived in fear of the phone call. You see, I knew he was plotting to kill me and other editors agreed that it was an excellent idea so if they ever worked out where on Earth this rogue homicidal bot was operating from it could have turned out rather poorly.
- So you see, operating a bot is fraught with danger, I have nothing against homicidal bots with lasers for eyes and missiles on their shoulders, or those predator combined missile and laser things all on the shoulder in one neat and easy to carry package, they're delightful and an evil genius's best friend, but it's a great deal of effort to go through the whole process IF that is not something you do a lot. Some people do that a lot, and I have only been studying bots, webscraping, java python mysql and so on for a short time, so I won't be ready until AFTER you lot stop your bickering and take it to the village pump and work out some freaking policy.
- In the meantime the images listed at the top of the page as being ruined or whatever from watermarks have no watermarks, show me some examples of images ruined by watermarks please. Penyulap ☏ 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Penyulap: (A) I second Fae's remark on the F word usage; absolutely unnecessary. (B) It is true that the images listed above and about 50 others have already been edited. There is still about 1400 that contain Microtoerisme's spam: Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks. Whaledad (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Language aside, Penyulap does stress an important point... that Commons has no clear watermark policy and any "enforcement" is inconsistent and all over the map. Files get deleted or not deleted depending whether they show up on the radar, on the whims of some random administrator and according to arbitrary standards. It's pitiful really when you think about it. We shoot ourselves in the foot and then complain we're bleeding. – JBarta (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well old ladies shriek at eyebrows and dandies feint at the sight of a belly-button and that is beside the point. The point is THERE IS NO POLICY REGARDING WATERMARKS so please discuss it at Commons:Village pump#Watermarks before those who do not give a crap about nought but belly-buttons and those who care about people being blocked willy-nilly have to put up with listening to each other any longer. Penyulap ☏ 07:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know how to mass-download and mass-crop losslessly. I've applied for permission to run a bot in order to re-upload the cropped files. Rybec (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've started uploading a few cropped files; they are listed at Special:Contributions/Rybecbot. My bot request is at Commons:Bots/Requests/Rybecbot. Rybec (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can see it looks good. And thank-you, it's very helpful. – JBarta (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. However, someone noticed that metadata was lost from the files I worked on, and also asked for edit summaries, which I don't know how to do with the script I'm using. Rybec (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Those problems with the bot are resolved. My request for a flag for it is again awaiting discussion. Rybec (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The title of the EXIF metadata is also spam, it can be removed. Hans Erren (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can see it looks good. And thank-you, it's very helpful. – JBarta (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus is that the files can be useful if cropped. Issues regarding the user's behaviour in attempting to spam the project should be dealt with - if still a problem - elsewhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture at Rovaniemi Airport in Rovaniemi, Finland. The most likely, the sculptor is still living. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rovaniemi Airport March 6 2009 02.jpg. ––Apalsola t • c 17:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This picture shows a very high insult for the middle east countries and the african countries,the middle easterns and the africans will not like to see another flag of another country on thier map GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perceived insults are not a reason for deletion. The questionable scope of this image however, is. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure about the "insultingness" of it all, but I don't understand what the image is supposed to be used for... AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
it is used to tell that egypt is a great power in the middle east and africa.GhiathArodaki (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- This flag-map use it in user teplate, to put in userpages only, not used in articles... it's like this photo: File:Américanisation du monde.JPG and File:Flag map of Canada and United States (American Flag).png and File:Flag map of United States (Israel).png. Faris El-Gwely (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- None of which belong here. Fry1989 eh? 03:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
These photos look like scans of a printed publication. Stefan4 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I own the right to this printed zed card so what is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharky60 (talk • contribs) 2013-03-15T22:51:00 (UTC)
- Since the card appeared outside Commons before it appeared here, you need to contact OTRS and prove that you took all three photos. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- This appears to be part of the OTRS ticket being discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Sharky60 uploads — just so we're all in the same place. --Closeapple (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Stefan4, as you can see in the summary page of this upload, I am not the author of these pix, but these friends:casale, jeffery, woodward. However I am the legal owner of all the rights to these pix and have granted use in wikipedia. This pic also appears on my official page biscarini.com.--Sharky60 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Sharky, please contact COM:OTRS FASTILY 07:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Restored - per OTRS ticket 2013031610006952 - Jcb (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
We have the same card in jpg and jpeg formats. I understand one would be enough, am I right? E4024 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Duplicate}}; without a link to the other file, we cannot verify. Ruthven (msg) 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Peppo-s zed card.jpeg E4024 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- The link to the other file is above. Respectfully. --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: this is the earlier original upload, redirected the JPEG version as duplicate. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but this looks a bit like a scan of a printed publication. Stefan4 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You are correct in asserting you are wrong. This pix was taken during the 1998 freediving World Cup by my wife and is not a scanned copy of a printed publication. Therefore legitimately USABLE under the Wiki guidelines, thus please remove the deletion request, thanks (talk)--Sharky60 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- This appears to be part of the OTRS ticket being discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Sharky60 uploads — just so we're all in the same place. --Closeapple (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. Restore upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY 07:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Der Weltkrieg im Bild
[edit]There is no clear evidence provided that the author is dead for at least 70 (plus) years. The assumption that there is no author known seems also to be very vague since there was surely no sufficient research being done.
- File:14,5 cm-Marinegeschütz feuert am Eingang der Schlugt von Hardecourt auf die deutschen Stellungen.jpg
- File:20,3 cm-Mörsers.jpg
- File:24 cm-Eisenbahngeschutz pic2.jpg
- File:30,5 cm-Langrohrgeschütz in Deckung gegen Fliegersicht.jpg
- File:37 cm-Tank- und Flugzeugabwehrkanonen.jpg
- File:7,5 cm-Feldkanone in Feuerstellung.jpg
- File:Abegelöste Truppen hinter der Front bei Guillemont.jpg
- File:Abgelöste englische Infanterie Kommt am frühen Morgen des 7 August 1916 im Lager bei Bray an.jpg
- File:Abgelöste Infanterie durchschreitet am 9 August 1916 die Ortschaft Fay.jpg
- File:Abgelöste Schottländer in einem Hohlweg an der Somme.jpg
- File:Abkekämpfte englische Truppen werden mit Lastwagen, die sie auf der Strasse Albert-Iricourt erwarten, nach den Ruhelagern zurückgebracht.jpg
- File:Ablösung einer marokkanischen Artilleriedivision an der Oisefront.jpg
- File:Abwehr eines deutschen Angriffes.jpg
- File:Afrikaner in englischer Uniform werden auf Lastwagen zur front transportiert.jpg
- File:Am Grabe des unbekannten Soldaten.jpg
- File:Am Kirchplatz von Esnes.jpg
- File:Am rückwärtigen Teil des gleichen Geschützes.jpg
- File:Amerikanische Batterien von 15,5 cm-Geschützen.jpg
- File:Amerikanische Infanterie gegen die deutschen Linien vor.jpg
- File:Amerikanische Infanterie.jpg
- File:Amerikanische Truppen setzen die gesprengte Brücke über die Vesle.jpg
- File:An den Ufern der Somme (22. Juli 1916). Ein Infanterieregiment auf dem Marsch zur Front.jpg
- File:An der Potsdam-Ferme schwerverwundete Deutsche .jpg
- File:An der Somme aufgestelltes 34 cm-Langrohrgeschütz.jpg
- File:An der Somme zum einsatz kommende englische Infanterie auf einer Anmarschstrasse.jpg
- File:An einem gefangenen deutschen Soldaten wird während der Herbstslacht in der champagne in einem Gehöft von St Etienne au Temple der Notverband gewechselt.jpg
- File:An einer Strassenkreuzung an der englisch-französischen Front bei Maricourt.jpg
- File:Angriff auf die 'Hindenburg-Linie' .jpg
- File:Ankunft von Nachschub-Batterien französischer schwerer Artillerie in Salontini.jpg
- File:Anlage von Munitionsdepots.jpg
- File:Ansicht aus dem zerschossenen Verdun.jpg
- File:Ansicht von Combles.jpg
- File:Ansicht von Verdun (1916).jpg
- File:Armierungssoldaten bringen Holzschuhe und Schlafsäcke in die Schützengräben bei Reims.jpg
- File:Arten von Flammenwerfern.jpg
- File:Artillerie Granate um Granate.jpg
- File:Artilleriebeobachter in voderster Linie bei Chaulnes.jpg
- File:Aud der Kämpfen in der Champagne im Herbst 1915.jpg
- File:Auf dem Schlachtfeld von St. Jean bei Ypern.jpg
- File:Auf dem Schlachtfeld vor Souain.jpg
- File:Auf den durch stete Regengüsse verschlammten Strassen.jpg
- File:Auf den Höhen an der Cerna vor dem Angriff rastende Truppen.jpg
- File:Auf ein Kraftfahrzeug aufmontierte Flugzeug-Abwehrkanone.jpg
- File:Auf einer gegen Sicht abgedeckten Strasse bei Messines.jpg
- File:Auf Maultieren zun Feldlazarett.jpg
- File:Auf unwegsamen Pfaden bei Bazentin le Petit (Somme).jpg
- File:Aus den Kämpfen bei Vieltje-Gravenstafel.jpg
- File:Aus den Maikämpfen des Jahres 1915 bei Carency.jpg
- File:Aus den Sommekämpfen 1916.jpg
- File:Aus den Sommekämpfen in Spätherbst 1916.jpg
- File:Aus der Gegend von Souain.jpg
- File:Aus der Gegens von Reims.jpg
- File:Aus der Kämpfen in der Champagne im Herbst 1915.jpg
- File:Aus einem Graben bei Pont-à-Mousson werden gegen die deutschen Linien Granaten geschleudert.jpg
- File:Ausgebrannt und zerrissen ragen die Ueberreste von Brabant-sur-Meuze gen Himmel.jpg
- File:Auspumpen eines Schützengrabens in Ploegsteert-Wald.jpg
- File:Ausschiffung von Schottländer in Marseille.jpg
- File:Aussenansicht des Fort Vaux mit den ausgebesserten Machinengewehrständen (1. Märtz 1917).jpg
- File:Auswechseln eines Geschützrohres unmittelbar hinter der Front.jpg
- File:Bailleul .jpg
- File:Ballonhafen bei Nancy.jpg
- File:Bapaume im September 1918.jpg
- File:Barrikadenkämpfe in einer Ferme .jpg
- File:Bau eines Unterstandes für den Brigade-Kommandeur bei Thaulnes.jpg
- File:Bei Beaumont-Hamel die deutschen Stellungen.jpg
- File:Bei den Kämpfen um die Wiedereroberung des Fort Vaux hämmerte das französische Artilleriefeuer mit ungeheurer Wucht gegen die Befestigunsanlagen.jpg
- File:Bei Monchy-le-Preux explodierter deutscher Munitionswagen.jpg
- File:Beim deutschen Rückzug zur Siegfried-Stellung.jpg
- File:Beim Zurückweichen der deutschen Front vor Verdun.jpg
- File:Belgische schwere Arillerie begibt sich bei Elverdinghe an die Front (1. Oktober 1918).jpg
- File:Bergung von Verwundeten im schweren deutschen Granatfeuer an der Somme 1916.jpg
- File:Beschädigter englischer Tank im morast.jpg
- File:Biaches an der Somme.jpg
- File:Bild in einen Schützengraben am Fort Douaumon.jpg
- File:Bild in einen Schützengraben.jpg
- File:Blick af die Kasernen des Forts Camp des Romains und auf den Ford von Apremont.jpg
- File:Blick auf das Kampffeld am Sabotwald während der Herbstschlacht in der Champagne.jpg
- File:Blick auf die deutschen Linien im Walde von Avocourt.jpg
- File:Blick in die französischen Linien im Walde von Grurie.jpg
- File:Blick in einem Schützengraben bei Mametz.jpg
- File:Blick in einen französischen Graben.jpg
- File:Blick in einen Schützengraben bei Deloire (Marne) im Abschnitt von reims.jpg
- File:Brennstoffbehälter des niedergegangenen LZ85.jpg
- File:Britische Feldartillerie feuert im offenen Gelände an der Strasse von Monchy-le-Preux.jpg
- File:Britische Infanterie begibt sich in die Schützengräber, bei La Boiselle.jpg
- File:Britische Truppen warten in einem Reserve-Graben auf den Vormarchbefehl-001.jpg
- File:Britische Truppen warten in einem Reserve-Graben auf den Vormarchbefehl.jpg
- File:Cambrai nach dem deutschen Rückzug.jpg
- File:Das beim deutschen Rückzug an der Aisne geräumte Chauny.jpg
- File:Das Bild zeigt eine Beutesammelstelle im Dorf Carency.jpg
- File:Das Chaos eines französischen Flugzeugparkes.jpg
- File:Das Divisions-Lebensmittel-Magazin im Fort Douaumont.jpg
- File:Das einzig existierende Bild, das Fort Douaumont.jpg
- File:Das Feuer einer Unzahl.jpg
- File:Das Ford Malmaison.jpg
- File:Das Fort Conde-fur-Aisne unter deutschem Artilleriefeuer.jpg
- File:Das Fort Douaumont (Januar 1916).jpg
- File:Das Fort St. Michel nach einem Arilleriebombardement.jpg
- File:Das Fort Vaux, 8 km vor Verdun.jpg
- File:Das Fort Vaux.jpg
- File:Das Gerippe L 3 85.jpg
- File:Das gleiche Geschütz bei Feuerabgabe.jpg
- File:Das gleiche Geschütz von rückwärts gesehen..jpg
- File:Das Granatfeuer der sich bekämpfenden Artillerien verwandelte Fresnes (Somme) in einen wüsten Trümmerhaufen (Juli 1917).jpg
- File:Das Kampfgelände beiderseits der Strasse nach Menin.jpg
- File:Das Laden dieses Geschützes.jpg
- File:Das Lager eines englischen Infanterieregiments.jpg
- File:Das Lazarettschiff La France.jpg
- File:Das Leben unmittelbar hinter der ersten Linie bei Feuillères am Ufer des Somme-Kanals während der Angriffe.jpg
- File:Das mit Blut getränkte Gelände beim Steilhang Douaumont.jpg
- File:Das Schlachtfeld bei Fort Douaumont (25. März 1917).jpg
- File:Das Schlachtfeld bei Martinpuich.jpg
- File:Das Schloss von Thiepval ist dem Erdboden gleichgemacht.jpg
- File:Das vielumstrittene Städtchen Chaulnes.jpg
- File:Das Wrack des Zeppelin L 33 .jpg
- File:Das zerrissene Gelände am Toten Mann.jpg
- File:Das zerschossene Schloss von Neuville-St Waast.jpg
- File:Das Zwischenwerk Froide Terre.jpg
- File:Der aussenordentlich grosse Verbrauch von Munition an der Somme stellte an die Munitionskolonnen grosse Anforderungen.jpg
- File:Der Bahnhof von Cerisy-Gailly.jpg
- File:Der Chenois-Wald bei der Hohen Batterie von Damloup.jpg
- File:Der Dresdner Graben im Abschnitt von Reims.jpg
- File:Der durch Artilleriefeuer beschädigte Turm der Kathedrale von Soissons.jpg
- File:Der Eingang des Forts Douaumont.jpg
- File:Der Eingang zur Drachenhöhle bei Hurtebise.jpg
- File:Der Maschinenraum des gesprengten U-Bootes.jpg
- File:Der Park von Carleul nach den Artilleriekämpfen der Grossangriffe vom Mai und September 1915.jpg
- File:Der Schauplatz schwerer Kämpfe an der französischen Ostfront.jpg
- File:Der Vauthier-Graben vor Castel.jpg
- File:Der Versluss eines 40 cm-Eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschützes.jpg
- File:Der volkommen zerstörte Bahnfog vpn Chauny.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-159.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-175.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-188.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-267.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-268.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-293.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-483.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild pic-603.jpg
- File:Der Weltkrieg im Bild, Front Cover.jpg
- File:Der Zeppelinangriff auf Paris.jpg
- File:Deutsche Gefangene bemühen sich unter Anweisung durch einen englischen Artzt um einen Schwerverwundeten.jpg
- File:Deutsche Gefangene die tagelang in dem von Leichengeruch verpesteten Gelände.jpg
- File:Deutsche Gefangnen, die tagelang den schwersten Angriffen bei Herbécourt standgehalten haben.jpg
- File:Deutsche Truppen, bei den Somme-Kämpfen.jpg
- File:Deutschen Barrikaden am Ende der Aisnebrücke in Soissons.jpg
- File:Deutscher Minenwerfer im Park von Grivesnes.jpg
- File:Deutsches Unterseeboot bei Wissant.jpg
- File:Dicht westlich Péronne.jpg
- File:Die abgelöste Besatzung des Forts Vaux rastet an einer Aufmarschstrasse.jpg
- File:Die aufgegebene erste deutsche Linie bei Souchez .jpg
- File:Die Baggerlöffel greifen ein.jpg
- File:Die Beschiesung von Esnes.jpg
- File:Die Clocken der Kirche von Combles.jpg
- File:Die Distillerie von Vauxerot.jpg
- File:Die durch die Zeppelinbombe am durchschlagene Strassendecke am Boulevard de Belleville.jpg
- File:Die durch Granatfeuer verwüstete Strasse beim Fort Souville.jpg
- File:Die ehemalige deutsche, nun umgebaute Stellung am eingang der Ortschaft Estrées.jpg
- File:Die eingangspforte.jpg
- File:Die erste Hilfe für einen bei der Monavu-Ferme Verwundeten.jpg
- File:Die ersten englischen Patrouillen betreten an Morgen des 9. Oktober 1918 die brennende Stadt Cabrai.jpg
- File:Die ersten Linien bei Villers-Bretonneux.jpg
- File:Die Halbinsel Gallipoli war monatelang der Schauplatz erbitterter Kämpfe.jpg
- File:Die Hauptstraße von Chavone nach den erbitterten Kämpfen in April 1917.jpg
- File:Die Hebstslacht in der Champagne 1915.jpg
- File:Die Herbstschalcht in der Champagne 1915.jpg
- File:Die in Trümmern liegende Basilika von Albert.jpg
- File:Die knietiefe Morast bei Pachendale erschwert die Bergung von Verwundeten, wie überhaupt jede Handlung ungemein.jpg
- File:Die Mitternachtsmesse zu Weihnachten 1916 im Fort Douaumon.jpg
- File:Die Mühle von Pontavert.jpg
- File:Die Reste der Kirche von Berry-au-Bac.jpg
- File:Die Reste der Kirche von Maurepas.jpg
- File:Die Reste von Neuville-St Waast.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen alter französischer Baracken in Ypern 1917.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen der Ortschaft Perthes.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen des Rathauses von Arras.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen des Rathauses von Roye.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen des Schlosses von Moreuil (8. August 1918).jpg
- File:Die Ruinen des Schlosses von Péronne.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen des Schlosses von Thaulnes.jpg
- File:Die ruinen von Baffée (Ende September 1918).jpg
- File:Die Ruinen von Loos.jpg
- File:Die Ruinen von Vlermont in den Argonnen.jpg
- File:Die starken Panzerbefestigungen des forts Vaux. Bei Kriegsbeginn wurde dieses fort noch bedeutend verstärkt.jpg
- File:Die Stosskraft der deutschen Truppen.jpg
- File:Die Strassen waren im Krieg die Lebensadern der truppen.jpg
- File:Die Taillette-Slucht, die unersätlich wie ein Moloch Blutopfer um blutopfer forderte.jpg
- File:Die Tankschlacht bei Cambrai.jpg
- File:Die Totenschlucht.jpg
- File:Die Trümmer der Kirche von Bétheny.jpg
- File:Die Trümmer der Kirche von Frise.jpg
- File:Die Ueberreste der Kathedrale von Ypern.jpg
- File:Die unerschöpflichen Munitionsreserven der alliierten Heere gestatteten eine ständige Beunruhigung des gegners durch schwerstes Artilleriefeuer.jpg
- File:Die verlassenen deutschen Linien bei Chavonne.jpg
- File:Die verlassenen deutschen Stellungen im Walde von Fay an der Somme.jpg
- File:Die vernichtende Wirkung französischen Artilleriefeuers.jpg
- File:Die verschlammte Strasse Aveluy-Albert.jpg
- File:Die Versorgung der englischen truppen im Weltkrieg.jpg
- File:Die vorderste deutsche Linie bei Frise (Somme), deren sich die französischen Truppen beim Angriff.jpg
- File:Die Wirkung des Sperrfeuers auf der Strasse von Souville.jpg
- File:Die Wirkung eines durch Flieger geleiteten Artilleriefeuers auf eine deutsche Stellung im Walde von Méreaucourt.jpg
- File:Die Wirkungen des Beschusses mit 44 cm-Granaten auf das fort Vacherauville.jpg
- File:Die zerschossene Kirche von Souain.jpg
- File:Die zerschossene Ortschaft Bucquoy.jpg
- File:Die zerschossenen Ortschaft Ham an der Somme.jpg
- File:Die Zuckerfabrik von Souchez.jpg
- File:Die Überreste der Kirche von Ablain-St. Nazaire nach den erbitterten Kämpfen im Herbst 1915.jpg
- File:Diese kleinen Behelfs-Munitionswagen.jpg
- File:Durch Granatfeuer in Brand geschossene Häuser.jpg
- File:Ehemalige deutsche Geschützstellung mit unzähligen leeren Geschosskörben.jpg
- File:Ein 12 tonnen schweres englisches Langrihrgeschütz.jpg
- File:Ein 24 cm-Eisenbahngeschütz im Argonnerwald.jpg
- File:Ein 24 cm-Geschütz, das auf einem Eisenbahnwagen montiert ist, während der Offensive an der Somme.jpg
- File:Ein 24-cm Geschütz bei Bouvancourt.jpg
- File:Ein 24cm-Eisenbahngeschüss (März 1917).jpg
- File:Ein 40 cm-Eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschütz in Geuerstellung in der Schlucht von Harbonniès.jpg
- File:Ein 40 cm-Eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschütz, das in der Schlucht von Harbonnières (Somme) Stellung bezogen hat.jpg
- File:Ein 40 cm-eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschütz, das in der Schlucht von Harbonnières Stellung bezogen hat.jpg
- File:Ein 40 cm-Langrohrgeschütz in guter Deckung bei Etelfay.jpg
- File:Ein altes deutsches Machinengewehrschützen-blockhaus bei Beuvraignes.jpg
- File:Ein Bataillon Madagasken begibt sich in Eilmärschen zur ersten Linie an der mazedonischen Front.jpg
- File:Ein bei einem Erkundungsunternehmen verwundeter Engländer wird von einem Kameraden zurückgeschleppt.jpg
- File:Ein Beobachtungsposten im Fort Vaux.jpg
- File:Ein Bild aus der Flandernschlacht 1917.jpg
- File:Ein charakteristisches Bild, das geeignet ist, das Bedückende eines Kampfgebietes zu veranschaulichen.jpg
- File:Ein deutscher Wegweiser Nach Flaucourt und Barleux in Biaches.jpg
- File:Ein deutsches Blockhaus bei Ville-aux-bois.jpg
- File:Ein durch französische Geschosse zerstörter deutscher Betonunterstand an der flandrischen Front.jpg
- File:Ein englischer Nachschubtank durchquert Bucquoy.jpg
- File:Ein englischer Tank auf dem Vormarch.jpg
- File:Ein englisches flugzeug, das die aufgabe hat, die deutschen Anmarschstrassen und Truppen-lager zu beunruhigen, nummt Bomben an Bord.jpg
- File:Ein eroberter deutscher Panzerturm an der Strasse von Souain nach Navarin.jpg
- File:Ein feuernder 37 cm-Mörser.jpg
- File:Ein französischer Feldgeistlicher an der Tragbahre eines bei den Kämpfen um die Höhe 304 schwerverwundeten Deutschen.jpg
- File:Ein französischer Krankenträger bringt einen verwundeten Engländer während der Schlacht zurück.jpg
- File:Ein gegen Fliegersicht gut eingedecktes 15,5 cm-Geschütz wird gerichtet.jpg
- File:Ein geländebild im Nordosten von Souain.jpg
- File:Ein Graben in der totenschlucht.jpg
- File:Ein Infanterieregiment durchschreitet beim Vormarsch ein Dorf an der Aisne (1918).jpg
- File:Ein Maschinengewehr wird in einem französischer Graben.jpg
- File:Ein Meldgänger wartet die wirkung eines Geschosseinschlages ab, um dann sofort wieder seinen Weg fortzusetzen.jpg
- File:Ein Minenstollen wird unter den deutschen Linien an der Vogesen-Front vorgetrieben.jpg
- File:Ein minenwerfer (Kaliber 24 cm) wird bei Roye an der Somme gegen die deutsche Stellung gerichtet.jpg
- File:Ein mit französischen Reserven besetzter ehemaliger deutscher Laufgraben in Wald von Trou-Bricot.jpg
- File:Ein Munitionswagen.jpg
- File:Ein Pionieroffizier hört mit einem Stetoscop.jpg
- File:Ein riesiger, zu einem Unterstand ausgebauter Minentrichter im verwüsteten Vorgelände des Forts Douaumont.jpg
- File:Ein Schützengraben der ersten Linie mit den Resten der Alger-Ferme.jpg
- File:Ein Schützengraben in der Gegend des Doiran-Sees.jpg
- File:Ein Schützengraben, der durch den Wald von Avocourt führt.jpg
- File:Ein Schützengrabenbagger.jpg
- File:Ein Spahi auf Posten in einem Schützengraben bei Bailly (Oise).jpg
- File:Ein Sturmwagen Modell Schneider.jpg
- File:Ein Tankgeschwader durchquert Nampcel .jpg
- File:Ein typisches Bild des flandrischen Sumpgeländes bei Birschoote das in der Flandern-schlacht 1917 bald in französischen, bald in deutschen Händen war.jpg
- File:Ein ungewöhnlich befestigtes Lager in der Gegend vin Tahure in der Champagne.jpg
- File:Ein Unterstand beim Fort Douaumont.jpg
- File:Ein von deutschen Minen zerwühlte Strasse in Roye.jpg
- File:Ein von Engländern bei Langemarck.jpg
- File:Ein von Truppen bei St Souplet benützter früherer englischer Tank.jpg
- File:Ein Wachtposten im russischen Abschnitt an der Marne.jpg
- File:Ein weiteres Beispiel für die vernichtende Wirkung des französischen Artilleriefeuers bei den Kämpfen im Oktober-November am fort Vaux.jpg
- File:Einbringen deutschen Gefangener bei Arras.jpg
- File:Eine 12 cm-Langrohr-Batterie in Tätigkeit bei Feuillères.jpg
- File:Eine 15,5 cm-Batterie im Kampf gegen die deutschen Stellungen bei Soupir.jpg
- File:Eine 15,5 cm-Batterie wird an der Somme in Stellung gebracht.jpg
- File:Eine 40 cm-Granate am Kran.jpg
- File:Eine abgeworfene Bombe an Place de la Concorde.jpg
- File:Eine amerikanische Mission besichtigt das zerstörte Ham.jpg
- File:Eine armierte 24cm-Kanone.jpg
- File:Eine britische Abteilung.jpg
- File:Eine Ecke in ehemaligen deutschen Grabensystem vor Dompierre.jpg
- File:Eine englische Feldkanone wird während der Flandernschlacht 1917 in Stellung gebracht.jpg
- File:Eine englische Infanteriebrigade auf dem Marsch zur Sommefront.jpg
- File:Eine Gruppe englischer und französischer Soldaten auf einem Schlachtfeld im Norden der Somme .jpg
- File:Eine günstig aufgestellte Batterie an einem Waldrand bei Soupir, während der Aisnekämpfe im April 1917.jpg
- File:Eine Häuserfront in Verdun am Ufer der Meuse.jpg
- File:Eine Innenansicht des Forts Malmaison.jpg
- File:Eine rege Ballonbeobachtung bei Verdun .jpg
- File:Eine schwere englische Batteriestellung im ehemaligen Bernafay-Wald.jpg
- File:Eine Schützengrabenbesatzung an der Front von Verdun.jpg
- File:Eine Sturmwelle in Schützenlöchern während der Kämpfe in der Gegend von Monastir.jpg
- File:Eine zerschlagene deutsche Batteriestellung.jpg
- File:Eines der riesigen und unerschöpflichen Munitionslager, das die frnazösische und englische Artillerie während der Grosskampfe an der Somme im Herbst 1916 mit Geschossen versorgte.jpg
- File:Einnahme von Lesboefs.jpg
- File:Einschlag einer deutschen Granate während der Sommekämpfe.jpg
- File:Einschlagende deutsche Artilleriegeschosse während der schweren Kämpfe.jpg
- File:Englische 15 cm-Geschütze in Feuerstellung.jpg
- File:Englische 20,3 cm-Mörser.jpg
- File:Englische Armierungstruppen begeben sich in die vorderen Linien.jpg
- File:Englische Artillerie durchschreitet beim Vormarsch zur Front Prouville.jpg
- File:Englische Artillerie geht bei Monchy-le-Preux in Stellung.jpg
- File:Englische Artillerie im Kampf um Carnoy Valley bei Montauban.jpg
- File:Englische Bereitschaftstruppen in einem Gehöft im Wald vin Bernafay.jpg
- File:Englische Blinker in einem Granatloch bei Iricourt.jpg
- File:Englische Eisenbahnhaubitze vor Feuerabgabe.jpg
- File:Englische Infanterie bei Zonnebeke.jpg
- File:Englische Infanterie beobachtet von der genommenen deutschen Stellung aus das Einschlagen schwerer Geschosse.jpg
- File:Englische Infanterie erwartet in einem mit einer Gasalarm-Trompete ausgerüsteten Schützengraben im Ploegsteert-Wald das Zeichen zum Angriff.jpg
- File:Englische Infanterie in Erwartung des Vormarschbefehls.jpg
- File:Englische Kavallerie bei Guillemont.jpg
- File:Englische Maschinengewehrabteilung in einem früheren deutschen Graben zweiter Linie bei Ribecourt.jpg
- File:Englische Pionere begeben sich mit Stacheldraht zur ersten Linie bei Wieltje an der Yperfront.jpg
- File:Englische Pioniere bringen Material zur Errichtung.jpg
- File:Englische Pioniere.jpg
- File:Englische Schleichpatrouille gegen die deutschen Gräben vor dem Angriff bei Beaumont-Hamel.jpg
- File:Englische schwere Haubitze in Gefecht.jpg
- File:Englische soldaten unterrichten sich durch Zeitungslektüre über die allgemeine Kriegslage.jpg
- File:Englische Sturmtruppen.jpg
- File:Englische Truppen in Gelände von Guillemont.jpg
- File:Englische Truppen passieren den Ypernkanal bei Boesinghe während der Flandernschlacht.jpg
- File:Englische und französische Artilleriebeobachter verfolgen das Feuer ihrer Batterien.jpg
- File:Englische und französische Kolonnen im Morast.jpg
- File:Englischen Gefechtstank.jpg
- File:Englischer Beobachtungsballon.jpg
- File:Englischer Flaktrupp, der mit allen modernen technischen Hilfsmitteln ausgerüstet ist, die eine erfolgreiche Bekämpfung feindlicher Flugzeuge gewährleisten.jpg
- File:Englischer Schützengraben bei Contalmaison (Mitte Juli 1916).jpg
- File:Englishes Steilfeuergeschütz wird in einem Wald.jpg
- File:Erbitterte Kämpfe entspannen sich um den Besitz des Trônes-Waldes.jpg
- File:Ersoffener Unterstand und Schützengraben.jpg
- File:Esnes, der Schauplatz heftiger Ringens.jpg
- File:Explosion einer Mine in Cambai.jpg
- File:Feuernde 7,5 cm-Feldkanonen vor Florina.jpg
- File:Feuerpause bei Monastir (1917).jpg
- File:Fliegeraufnahme von dem völlig zerstörten Ypern.jpg
- File:Franzosen und Deutsche, die während der erbitterten Kämpfe in der Champagne verwundet wurden.jpg
- File:Französische 22 cm-Mörser im Kampf gegen die deutsche Artillerie.jpg
- File:Französische 37 cm-Granaten.jpg
- File:Französische 7,5 cm-Batterien feuern im offenen Gelände.jpg
- File:Französische Flammenwerfer.jpg
._Ein_Infanterieregiment_auf_dem_Marsch_zur_Front.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_im_Abschnitt_von_reims.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_einen_w%C3%BCsten_Tr%C3%BCmmerhaufen_(Juli_1917).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_deren_sich_die_franz%C3%B6sischen_Truppen_beim_Angriff.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Stellung_bezogen_hat.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_wird_bei_Roye_an_der_Somme_gegen_die_deutsche_Stellung_gerichtet.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, all this stuff is from the First World War, it's all too old. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Considering their German file names, I'm even willing to bet alot of of these fall under Bundesarchiv licensing. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- A "Bundesarchiv licensing" does not exist. "too old" is not given. Please read PD licensing rules. --High Contrast (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don;'t you tell me to "go read the PD licenses", I'm well aware of them. There IS a special attribution license for any image held in the German Federal Archives, of which no doubt many of these are. However, also considering all these images are from WWI, PD-old would also apply. Fry1989 eh? 21:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- A "Bundesarchiv licensing" does not exist. "too old" is not given. Please read PD licensing rules. --High Contrast (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Considering their German file names, I'm even willing to bet alot of of these fall under Bundesarchiv licensing. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no Bundesarchiv license. Only few images of the Bundesarchiv have been published under a free CC-license on Commons. This CC license only applies for those ones on Commons. If there are duplicates among those files listed above they must get deleted due to this anyway. For other files we need very specific author information in order to user PD-old (please remember: life of the author plus 70 years) or PD-anon. These are the facts. --High Contrast (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, for proving me right. I said there is a special attribution license for images held in the Bundesarchiv, I was right. As for PD-old, I am also very aware that it requires 70 years past the death of the author, which means in this case the author of any of these images would have had to have died in 1943 or earlier. Extremely plausible.If you don't like my vote to keep, too bad, but it is not arbitrary or just because "I want everything to stay", I have two extremely plausible reasons why these images are free to stay on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on your "vote". My likes are irrelevant here. You surely know: DRs are not here in order to exchange votes. Only facts count and you did not provide any. You have only provided speculations which do not help to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have provided several facts, you just don't like them. Fry1989 eh? 03:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on your "vote". My likes are irrelevant here. You surely know: DRs are not here in order to exchange votes. Only facts count and you did not provide any. You have only provided speculations which do not help to solve this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, Some and maybe more pictures are allready on wikimedia commons!Alfvanbeem eh? 18:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty new to wikicommons so forgive me when my arguments are not clear or realistic. Myatrongest argument (up to now) is that for example File:Ein 40 cm-Eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschütz in Geuerstellung in der Schlucht von Harbonniès.jpg is already on wikimedia commons as File:400 mm railway howitzer 1916 AWM H04509.jpeg . I have found other pictures as well which i, if you think can enforce the argument will find for you! However i find it strange that this image was made available from the Collection Database of the Australian War Memorial under the ID Number: H04509 where also no author name has been given! Please tell me the reason (since i am pretty new to all this) that we accept this and not from a single user? Is this not measuring whit different standards? Furthermore, some of the pictures are clearly from the same author like File:Ein 40 cm-Eisenbahn-Langrohrgeschütz, das in der Schlucht von Harbonnières (Somme) Stellung bezogen hat.jpg So it would be save to assume that that picture is also allowed or is that not so? I also have another question. What does wikimedia commons find acceptable for a time-span as to consider if an unknown author can be safely assumed to have been deseased + 70 years, so we know we can use those pictures? Or is that never the case? If you want me to produce more evidence of pictures from "Der Weltkrieg im Bild" already on wikimedia, please let me know and i will try to find them, alltough it is pretty tough since i don't know a fast way to go trough all of the subcategories to find the pictures. Regards, Alf van Beem
- Photographs of British artillery and servicemen in action are by definition Crown Copyright, and hence in the public domain 50 years after creation. Reason is that only official Government photographers were allowed to use cameras that close to the action, meaning all such photographs were created for or by the British Government, hence subject to Crown Copyright. This would even apply to an ordinary serviceman who took photographs privately while on duty - he took them in the course of his work, hence the Government owned copyright. Hence e.g. Englische Eisenbahnhaubitze vor Feuerabgabe.jpg is in the public domain since about 1968. Hence all WWI photographs showing British, Australian, Canadian etc. units and equipment deployed anywhere near the front can safely be assumed to be PD even if we don't know who took them. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Rcbutcher. This means that files like File:Englische und französische Kolonnen im Morast.jpg and any other file names with British or Canadian in it should stay, i think? Also, all this photo's were from the Archives of the Entente (i.e. The Entente cordiale, a series of agreements signed on 8 April 1904 between the United Kingdom and the French Third Republic) as stated in the book, as i understand it, meaning that all photo's are from those two countries. I don't know if there are any French photographes in that book nor the rights that than should apply. If this is so, nust i change the licences myself and if so, to what licence? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if British Empire forces (Brit, Indian, Canadian, Australian, NZ, South African, Newfoundland) in action, they are official & Crown Copyright & now Public Domain - they only allowed British Empire official photographers to photograph. But somebody has already started deleting them ?@! Rcbutcher (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Rcbutcher, thanks for the answer. Another question i have isthe following: Do i remove the deletion request as well. I did it with file 20,3 cm-Mörsers. Is this ok and will the files not be deleted then? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide some valid evidence why a PD-UKGov applied for this file File:20,3 cm-Mörsers.jpg, please? --High Contrast (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- As understood from the above written: "Yes, if British Empire forces....." AND the soldiers on the photograph are English (see there helmets), is the evidence. Alfvanbeem (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the identifiable soldiers in the picture appear to be wearing Adrian helmets and hence most likely to be visiting French (note the notebook - he could be an officer on a study tour). However - this is a British 8-inch Mk VI howitzer and were only operated by the Brits in their own emplacements - I very much doubt they would have allowed French photographers or any other in here because the Brits would need to carefully censor any photographs before release, and allowing outside photographers would have made this difficult. Remember, this was a war and these were key military assets - the latest British supergun - you don't allow anybody with a camera near them unless you control them. Many such photographs were either not released at the time or censored to hide any important details.Rcbutcher (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide some valid evidence why a PD-UKGov applied for this file File:20,3 cm-Mörsers.jpg, please? --High Contrast (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Rcbutcher, thanks for the answer. Another question i have isthe following: Do i remove the deletion request as well. I did it with file 20,3 cm-Mörsers. Is this ok and will the files not be deleted then? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if British Empire forces (Brit, Indian, Canadian, Australian, NZ, South African, Newfoundland) in action, they are official & Crown Copyright & now Public Domain - they only allowed British Empire official photographers to photograph. But somebody has already started deleting them ?@! Rcbutcher (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Rcbutcher. This means that files like File:Englische und französische Kolonnen im Morast.jpg and any other file names with British or Canadian in it should stay, i think? Also, all this photo's were from the Archives of the Entente (i.e. The Entente cordiale, a series of agreements signed on 8 April 1904 between the United Kingdom and the French Third Republic) as stated in the book, as i understand it, meaning that all photo's are from those two countries. I don't know if there are any French photographes in that book nor the rights that than should apply. If this is so, nust i change the licences myself and if so, to what licence? Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Photographs of British artillery and servicemen in action are by definition Crown Copyright, and hence in the public domain 50 years after creation. Reason is that only official Government photographers were allowed to use cameras that close to the action, meaning all such photographs were created for or by the British Government, hence subject to Crown Copyright. This would even apply to an ordinary serviceman who took photographs privately while on duty - he took them in the course of his work, hence the Government owned copyright. Hence e.g. Englische Eisenbahnhaubitze vor Feuerabgabe.jpg is in the public domain since about 1968. Hence all WWI photographs showing British, Australian, Canadian etc. units and equipment deployed anywhere near the front can safely be assumed to be PD even if we don't know who took them. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 07:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern - Bulgaria Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It only contains nuber "7" + TV in it. so it spots a PD-text logo.--The TV Boy 08:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the previous nomination, this has been overwritten by a substantially more complex image. This is no longer just a simple letter, but it also has a colour effect and a 3D effect. I think that we need to delete the current version of the file. Stefan4 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that it deserves a new discussion. In the USA, it is just two letters and a number, clearly PD-text, but it would probably fall under the UK's typography rule if it were sourced there. I have no idea what the rule is in Bulgaria, and I doubt that any of us do, so we may have have to delete it on COM:PRP grounds. Too bad -- it's much better looking than the old logo. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- In Bulgaria the logos of the national TV channels are provided with free license, but if you insist so I've uploaded a new more simplified version without the 3D efect.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are now four different images in the history, so apart from deleting some revisions, this need to be split up. I would say that the first, second and fourth uploads are fine whereas the third and fifth uploads are unclear due to colour effects on both of them and a 3D effect on one of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please correctly license this file. The operation of recording a voice is a technical operation, and doesn't create copyright. So, Manuel Massimo isn't the copyright holder. What the Vatican copyright law says about official talk recordings? I guess, such a formal speak doesn't meet the originality threshold, as it's the spoken version of a public domain text. But what about droits voisins? Dereckson (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the actual vatican Copyright Law. But I don't can italian, so someone who is able to read italien should check this. --Excolis (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the first page, the third and fourth paragraphs are the translation in english of the first and second paragraphs. The first part of the second page speaks about some Benedetto XVI's audiences. In the second part I read that all economic and moral copyrights of the Pope are entrusted to the Libreria Editrice Vaticana which can operate in the place of Holy See. I quote, "[Libreria Editrice Vaticana] perform any act of disposal of such rights, follow any legal and judicial way, propose any action to the full protection and realization of these rights and It resist any claim or demand by third parties, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties and conventions that Holy See has joined." The third page is about Benedetto XVI: He entrusted his copyrights, of his life before becoming Pope, to Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The last part of the page speaks about some appointments made by Benedetto XVI.--Peppo (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hm. So this law only affects speeches, works, etc. by popes? Here is an older copyright law, also in italian, maybe it's still binding? --Excolis (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that law only affects speeches, works, etc. by popes.
The older law: Art 1 says that Holy See adopts the Italian copyright law, as long as it is not contrary divine and canonical rights, or en:Lateran Treaty. Art 2 says copyrights law enforces the texts of law and official acts pubblished by Holy See or Vatican City. Art 3 says that the article n. 20 of Lateran Treaty is revoked (goods from abroad is no longer allowed to move freely). Art 4 says these articles came into force on the date of publication. --Peppo (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC) - And now? --Excolis (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that law only affects speeches, works, etc. by popes.
- Hm. So this law only affects speeches, works, etc. by popes? Here is an older copyright law, also in italian, maybe it's still binding? --Excolis (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the first page, the third and fourth paragraphs are the translation in english of the first and second paragraphs. The first part of the second page speaks about some Benedetto XVI's audiences. In the second part I read that all economic and moral copyrights of the Pope are entrusted to the Libreria Editrice Vaticana which can operate in the place of Holy See. I quote, "[Libreria Editrice Vaticana] perform any act of disposal of such rights, follow any legal and judicial way, propose any action to the full protection and realization of these rights and It resist any claim or demand by third parties, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties and conventions that Holy See has joined." The third page is about Benedetto XVI: He entrusted his copyrights, of his life before becoming Pope, to Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The last part of the page speaks about some appointments made by Benedetto XVI.--Peppo (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)