Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![4 File:Jules Benoit-Lévy. "Pelant des pommes de terre".JPG](#File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
0-9869559411890805.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_March_2012.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Per [1], it seems there are doubts the uploader is the image author. Dereckson (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APapa_Francisco_con_periodistas_2013-03-16.jpg&diff=92903481&oldid=92846323){kind=link}
- Previous uploads' EXIF tags give iPod touch, Canon PowerShot A2200 as cameras. --Dereckson (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! The image is given by a friend to me with the permission of using it in Wikipedia with all the "rights" and only for this page. Thank you.--Tenan (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- However, then you should not write your name in the author entry. The same is true for File:Papa Francisco recién elegido.jpg, right? Now you need to ask your friend to send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . See here for the procedure: Commons:OTRS/es and here for a permission template. However, we do not accept "Wikipedia-only". Besides, the image is already used outside, see File talk:Papa Francisco con periodistas 2013-03-16.jpg and here. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! The image is given by a friend to me with the permission of using it in Wikipedia with all the "rights" and only for this page. Thank you.--Tenan (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Only the permission to use the picture on one Wikipedia page. Dereckson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No permission from Author. Not appropriate lincense and source. No proof about the age of the photo. Bellayet (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination. This DR is being dealt with as a matter of priority, given the articles it appears on are on front pages of numerous projects at the moment russavia (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ikkkjjjjjk 74.83.228.106 13:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion given. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Jules Benoit-Lévy died in 1952. France is pma +70. Not PD until 2022 (1952+70) Эlcobbola talk 12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-Elcobbola-2013-03-20T12:29:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
No problem!!! All rights to this work belong to me. The rights of private property.--Tatesic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-Tatesic-2013-03-20T12:39:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
Kept: OTRS received Morning ☼ (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
![06:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-Morning_Sunshine-2013-03-21T06:15:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
Deletion request reopened. Per ticket:2013032010010886 uploader is owner of the painting and creator of the photograph, and there is valid OTRS permission for the photograph. As said above, Jules Benoit-Lévy died in 1952, so permission for the painting is required by the heirs, but this is doubted by the uplaoder, see: [2]. To my opinion the image cannot be kept without permission for the shown work. --Krd 07:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![07:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-Krd-2013-03-22T07:16:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
ru Авторское право и право собственности
Авторское право на произведение не связано с правом собственности на материальный носитель (вещь), в котором произведение выражено. Переход права собственности на экземпляр произведения сам по себе не влечёт передачи каких-либо прав на само произведение, за исключением случаев отчуждения оригинала произведения (рукописи, оригинала произведения живописи, скульптуры и т. п.) его собственником, обладающим исключительным правом на произведение, но не являющимся автором (если договором не предусмотрено иное).[3] --Tatesic (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-Tatesic-2013-03-22T10:43:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Speedying this; OTRS ticket is clearly not valid. Owning a copy of a painting does not make one the copyright holder (others may be able to use it under fair use, but Commons explicitly refuses to accept fair use material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/20#c-HJ_Mitchell-2013-03-22T13:59:00.000Z-File:Jules_Benoit-Lévy._"Pelant_des_pommes_de_terre".JPG){kind=link}
Copyright violation. No exif, probably a screen capture. Google finds many similar copies elsewhere. Also has "?" in the source on the description page. Sinnamon (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious cpio. JuTa 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in italy.--Wdwd (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, delete. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - concensus and clear case. --Krd 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in italy.--Wdwd (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, delete. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - concensus and clear case. --Krd 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in italy.--Wdwd (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, delete. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - concensus and clear case. --Krd 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in italy/indoor.--Wdwd (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, delete. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - concensus and clear case. --Krd 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work, and the seal is complicated enough for copyright to attach Courcelles 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I could not find an OTRS ticket for this file, and double-checked at the OTRS noticeboard where another OTRS member couldn't find it either. Image uploaded in a batch of copyvios (see user talk and deleted contribs). OTRS pending template appears to be bogus. Эlcobbola talk 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted per nomination. --Krd 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The image may well be {{Own}} but not the medal itself. Sinnamon (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I think that I may have been too quick with the DR in this case. The medal is PD as I understand now. Sinnamon (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This medal - State awards subject of Russia.
This license allows you to use this image. Георгий Долгопский
I withdraw my nomination Sorry for troubles. Sinnamon (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No permission to publish given by the copyright holder. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
blank scan JeanBono (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader actually holds the copyright. Looks like magazine scans —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader actually holds the copyright. Looks like magazine scans —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader actually holds the copyright. Looks like magazine scans —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
no FOP in Tajikistan Krd 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
wrong title Iopmathura (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Use {{Rename}} instead. INeverCry 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation Narayan (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
If the image is from 1943, it's not possible for the author to have been dead for over 70 years yet. The original file at uk.wp gives the year as 1947, not 1943. {{PD-Ukraine}} would require the photographer to have died before 1951, but no information about the author is available. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The author Mihai Gheorghe died in 2008, so the paintings are still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE - non-notable person(s), poor technical quality Эlcobbola talk 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, no camera EXIF data, uploaded with similar blatant copyvio (File:Ostroushechka.jpg ) - DUCK? Эlcobbola talk 11:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's work; watermark attributes "Platinum Keez" - we would require their permission. Uploaded with copyvio of same subject (File:RMB REAL MONEY BOY.jpg) Эlcobbola talk 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
author and date unknown, invalid license Krd 13:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This image was sourced from the Domino's website and does not give attribution to its author. Gobōnobo + c 13:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non-free image: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is used for the purpose of Wikipedia only. Burton C. Bell retains the copyright to this photograph and use of it is limited to Wikipedia for the purpose of his article stub only.." Psychonaut (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:GH 377@71A.jpg
- File:GJ5810 273A.JPG
- File:NV8552 79K.JPG
- File:GJ3303 54.JPG
- File:KV7884 and NA4179 968.JPG
- File:JF9088(736) K66.JPG
- File:KU8676 268C.JPG
- File:NA8693 268B.JPG
- File:GE8007 282.JPG
- File:GY4032 276A.JPG
_K66.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Non-free licence: "The picture can be used in Wikipedia only, usage in Encyclopedia of Bus Transport in Hong Kong is strictly prohibited. For use of the image in other occasions (except Encyclopedia of Bus Transport in Hong Kong), please contact me in my talk page and receive my permit, I will give another version to you." Psychonaut (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
no license, PD-Albania-exempt does not apply, nor does PD-textlogo Krd 14:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Invalid transfer from ru:Файл:Sochi Train Station.JPG, no permission. Krd 14:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm the transferer. Why I need permission to say that the author has released it to the public domain? Does it mean that only the author can do it?--Bagratun (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence in ru:Файл:Sochi Train Station.JPG that the author Соломин А.В. is the same person than the uploader User:Yufereff and/or has agreed in the license, so OTRS permission process is required for the file first. --Krd 07:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Apart from the problem above, there is additionally no freedom of panorama in Russia, and ru:Душкин, Алексей Николаевич died in 1977. According to es:Estación de Sochi, the station is from 1918, so it is too recent for {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Without permission from the architect's heirs, we can't keep the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the problem of the identity of the user. The building that is shown in the picture was built in 1952, in Soviet times, not in 1918, year of the first station of Sochi. That's why I thought it was free in this sense. Thanks for attention.--Bagratun (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- You can't upload photos of buildings in Russia unless the building either was made before 7 October 1917 or the architect died before 1943. This isn't the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the problem of the identity of the user. The building that is shown in the picture was built in 1952, in Soviet times, not in 1918, year of the first station of Sochi. That's why I thought it was free in this sense. Thanks for attention.--Bagratun (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No author information; non-free licence ("for use on Wikipedia only") Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Norway. 84.61.140.213 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It is from the 1970s if I remember correctly, so definitely still protected by copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have taken the picture myself, no copyright infliction by copying other picture.--Karl Brodowsky (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that you didn't make the globe yourself and that your photo is infringing the sculptor's copyright. Without permission from the sculptor, the image has to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep I find it absurd to go that far with the copyright of the sculptor. Everybody who is there takes a photograph of the globe and many put it on a web page. Should there be a "no fotos" sign on the North Cape plateau? Nobody would understand that.--Bk1 168 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's the way it works with all Norwegian sculptures: you have to wait until the sculptor has been dead for at least 70 years before you can upload photos to Commons. Norwegian copyright law only allows you to use photos of recent sculptures for non-commercial purposes, but Commons only accepts images which can be used for commercial purposes. Check Category:Norwegian FOP cases for some similar cases. Some Wikipedia projects might allow the image to be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles, for example using en:Template:Non-free 3D art or ja:Template:屋外美術. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation - taken from Shyam Prasad's Pbase portfolio. Yunshui (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
non-free licence: "Permission for Wikipedia only" Psychonaut (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
non-free: "Permission to be used on wikipedia only" Psychonaut (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
0-9869559411890805.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
0-9869559411890805.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted. http://www.babelio.com/users/AVT_Bernard-Fauconnier_2844.jpeg Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
0-9869559411890805.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
0-9869559411890805.jpg){kind=link}
This file had from the moment of its upload in 2006[4] a completely inappropriate and invalid license template, PD-Art. It's sad that nobody became aware of this problem within more than 6 years. As this is the only upload of this user, we cannot know what his license intention was. His latest activity was in 2009 on :fr[5]. In addition, I am not sure whether it is really his own work. Opinions? -- Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chocolat_blanc.jpg&oldid=3107679){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fotografía extraida de http://www.adrianazapisek.com/ en el pie del sitio web ya indica que se reservan todos los derechos Jcfidy (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marked as copyvio. --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Ghanaian flag, it is scalable. Fry1989 eh? 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have SVGs of the German flag, SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Belgian flag, SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 15:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be Flickrwashing. Uploaded to Flickr in 2012 but it appeared elsewhere as early as 2008. Stefan4 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the earlier publication and thought it was owned by EFeng on Flickr. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for catching it. I agree the evidence here points to Flickrwashing, so the image should be deleted. I think I can take a photo myself to replace this one for the articles currently using it.--K8bell (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I found another image to replace this one and uploaded it to Commons. There are no articles using this image now, so it can safely be deleted.--K8bell (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
unused user page image, out of scope Didym (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Guinean flag, SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
An SVG exists, this is unneccessary. Fry1989 eh? 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Jespinos (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hike395 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not PD in the US --- published after 1923 Current license is indeed bogus, but a US work published in 1987 may or may not be PD. Discussion is needed; not speedy eligible. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Highly likely to remain under copyright per COM:HIRTLE; no evidence provided to support PD claim and, in that absence, COM:PRP and COM:EVID compel deletion. Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader was notified on 23 Feb that copyvio was suspect: no evidence given in the last month. — hike395 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Likely not own work, as same image found here and author name in EXIF data differs from uploader name. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
this is a copy of getty image [6] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1366&bih=645&tbm=isch&tbnid=D4RhSF7M4KXRpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/queen-marie-jose-of-italy-as-princess-marie-jose-of-news-photo/3302736&docid=S0-V0htJoXllrM&imgurl=http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/3302736-february-1939-queen-marie-jose-of-italy-as-gettyimages.jpg%253Fv%253D1%2526c%253DIWSAsset%2526k%253D2%2526d%253DOCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QK2An8c25n%25252BkKSVP2QDUdoYOjSi%25252BgLunbUv9y4X4HszKbmJbOTQaCU%25252FhX7WHUuyjUA%25253D%25253D&w=437&h=594&ei=OelJUaulFaqM2gWVp4HYBw&zoom=1&sa=X&ved=0CIMCEIQcMDQ&ved=1t:3588,r:52,s:0,i:259&iact=rc&dur=1244&page=2&tbnh=183&tbnw=136&start=26&ndsp=36&tx=70&ty=72){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Photo is a derivative of this sculpture; needs permission from the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No releasable license at source: http://www.pbase.com/shyamprasad/image/111479141 TParis (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Really Own work? It looks like a professional picture of the company. Similar pictures are found on the internet (example). Leyo 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:OTRS/N#File:LobbyboomBrusselIMG2092.jpg, the permission is only from the photographer. As there is no permission from the architect, the image needs to be deleted. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
unused user page image, out of scope Didym (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. Not used. Gunnex (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Looks like a copyvio. Sinnamon (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that this is own work of uploader 92.230.96.253 20:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't jibe with the rest of the uploader's photos, it's taken from someone else's website. Not only is the website not there any more but Peter Hanna died a couple of years ago, so obtaining permission doesn't seem likely. moogsi (blah) 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Obvious case of derivative work. De minimis does not apply, as the Hempel logo is the central element of the figure and it's being used in the gl:Hempel article Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No source given for the original map. Looks to have been cut out from something. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Advertising and self-promotion. yfdyh000 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Licence wrong. Modern stamp of Vietnam presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B19.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Moreover, there's a spelling mistake in this one: motorcyclistes instead of motocyclistes. BrightRaven (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No educational value, possibly problematic as the people in the picture are minors Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No educational purpose. A hydraulic ram pump has two key components: the waste valve and the check valve. This diagram omits the check valve, and the waste valve is drawn in a way that makes it not look like a valve. Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete We have plenty of hydraulic rams already, including the source drawing for this one. Why do we need this poorly re-drawn derivative? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted logos of two companies. It is unlikely that the companies have licensed their logos freely. —Mono 23:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It's in .png, I needed .jpg VictoriaKh (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason to delete PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This picture is incorrect. The Earle House is located behind (east) of the Jordan Creek, and is not this house on the highway. Brezelfenster (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
- That's a reason for renaming and for changing the description, not a reason to delete the photo entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think what Brezelfenster means is that this isn't actually the Earle House; the photo is of a house of no particular importance, between the Earle House and the highway. (See Commons:Village pump#Earle House, Cane Hill, Arkansas.) If that's true, it might fail COM:SCOPE as a low-quality photo of no realistic educational purpose. I've edited the description to reflect Brezelfenster's information. If the file ends up kept, it probably needs a better filename too. --Closeapple (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my photo is of the wrong house. I uploaded it because it looked like the photo on the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. The real house is in a sad state. I would be OK with deleting my original image. Thanks and good catch Brezelfenster. Brandonrush (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- It probably doesn't help that defective coordinates on Wikipedia for NRHP sites are sometimes more of a distraction than a help; they often use the wrong datum for coordinates, and that's when they were even based on the right place. The alleged coordinates 35°54′18.0″N 94°23′45″W / 35.905°N 94.39583°W are, if interpreted at WGS84, very close to the house on the highway. But the coordinates are probably NAD23 instead. Converted from NAD23 to WGS84, that's 35°54′18.29482″N 94°23′45.76915″W / 35.9050818944°N 94.3960469861°W, 70 feet (21.3 meters) away — which is next to a house back in the woods on the hill. I'll bet that's where the Earle House is. Maybe Brezelfenster can verify this. --Closeapple (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my photo is of the wrong house. I uploaded it because it looked like the photo on the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. The real house is in a sad state. I would be OK with deleting my original image. Thanks and good catch Brezelfenster. Brandonrush (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think what Brezelfenster means is that this isn't actually the Earle House; the photo is of a house of no particular importance, between the Earle House and the highway. (See Commons:Village pump#Earle House, Cane Hill, Arkansas.) If that's true, it might fail COM:SCOPE as a low-quality photo of no realistic educational purpose. I've edited the description to reflect Brezelfenster's information. If the file ends up kept, it probably needs a better filename too. --Closeapple (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Also this is of {{Low quality}}. Therefore: Delete. --McZusatz (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per McZusatz PierreSelim (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Not in use, out of scope - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coa Algeria Country Kabylia.svg Fanfwah (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
And SVG exists at File:Signal B29.svg Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG exists at File:Signal B49 VL.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG exists at File:Signal B29 VL.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Artem Korzhimanov as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free logo INeverCry 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. And why it cannot be qualified as a speedy deletion? Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope nonsense with hoax description. Not useful for educational purposes. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - old photo - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 20:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 20:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 21:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 21:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 21:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 21:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Fotografija jezera u Erdeviku je moja, ja sam je napravila, na slici je moj sin. u cemu je problem? radoslava konjevic
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
_March_2012.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_March_2012.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
_March_2012.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
_March_2012.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image/logo - might be promotional INeverCry 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong Version, no use in a wiki, upload in 16:9 version (horizontal) follows and then it would be included in a gallery Sebastian6186 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - photo or scan of old photo - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 22:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 22:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user INeverCry 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (although very weak) There are only two subcats and no files in Category:Chefs from Russia. This image isn't great, but for now it's not worse than nothing. Sinnamon (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 22:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image/logo INeverCry 22:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
تتتتتتتتننننننننننننننننننننن Geldawy (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B30.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B17.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B12.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Panneau-B13a.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B13.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B11.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:B5B.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B5C.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:B5A.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Belgian road sign B4.svg. Fry1989 eh? 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Permission to use this photo was not given legally 96.41.74.23 07:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Who are you, the uploader? --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your statement seems dubious as we know this was from the SuicideGirls flickr stream, we know that they license their flickr stream under the given licence, and we also know that as a reputable website they keep legal documentation. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not 96.41.74.23. --Laod (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The SG flickr stream is ok PierreSelim (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as personality rights violation per ticket:2013032010003321. --Krd 13:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
No indication that the author has died more than 70 years ago. ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The author is unknown, so PD-OLD should be applicable. --Florentyna (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. That the source does not provide authorship information does not make the author unknown Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No indication that the author has died more than 70 years ago. ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The author is unknown, so PD-OLD should be applicable. --Florentyna (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I incorrectly moved this image from Wikipedia to Commons, thinking it was in the public domain. I now believe it is owned by the San Francisco public library, as indicated here: http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000017301
Not public domain, owned by SF Public Library K8bell (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I respectfully disagree. On Wikimedia projects, we do not recognize mere mechanical reproductions of public domain works. And this work is almost certainly in the public domain, unless it was first published between 1923-2002 under a set of very specific circumstances (i.e., following formalities, and rights turned over to the library; see Commons:Hirtle Chart). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Magog Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 |
File:T6-schema coupe sembat-78-2modifiee 3.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Deleted: Per nom Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a lot of text written by Microsoft. Stefan4 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- why? all the other BSODs are public domain?! like this one File:Windows 9X BSOD.png -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some of them might be below the threshold of originality, but many of them seem to contain too much text. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This one (File:Windows XP Blue Screen of Death (PAGE FAULT IN NONPAGED AREA).svg) also includes "a lot of text" but it's public domain. -- Iñfẽstør T• C• U 16:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some of them might be below the threshold of originality, but many of them seem to contain too much text. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nomination Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This contains an awful lot of text. The licence claim is dubious. Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I do not believe there is enough on the screen to make this content eligible for intellectual property. It is unoriginal information in essence in my view. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The text contains a lot of creative decisions: word order, choice of words and such things. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
this is a corbis stock image [7] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I had noticed that there was a similar copy in the Corbis website, but this picture is in fact a scanned copy from an old postcard. Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier, sorry about that! Sometimes I make silly mistakes. If you want I can change its source now User:Franzy89
- Delete The photographer Alberto Blasetti was still alive in 1958[8] and so the image is still copyrighted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DrKiernan's Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Koui² as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted logo Discussion needed regarding whether logo is sufficiently complex. Эlcobbola talk 16:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- delete : Logo is sufficiently complex, of course. --Koui² (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course? How do you reconcile that opinion with this logo (not eligible per this), this logo (not eligible per this or this logo (not eligible per this)? Those are but a few examples from the page I cited that are equally, if not more, complex. (I'm not saying you're necessarily incorrect, but a more thoughtful opinion would be helpful.) Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: borderline case JuTa 12:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: FOP-related requests have been split to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (FOP-related). However, to preserve existing references to these requests, all numeric disambiguations have been preserved. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]seem not to be own work (upload pattern mismatch, exif, ...)
- File:NationalShrineofOurMotherofPerpetualHelpjf 01.jpg
- File:NationalShrineofOurMotherofPerpetualHelpjf 02.jpg
- File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 04.jpg
- File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 03.jpg
- File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 02.jpg
- File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 01.jpg
McZusatz (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I went and called 2 offices on the matter. I consider that the USA laws and Commons are the same, and Philippine copyright laws were borrowed from USA. Hence, I needed some enlightenment on the legal ramifications on copyright law. Specifically, the issue here is whether or not these uploaded images violated copyright or any other laws? Let me share my legal opinion and thoughts on the matter. First, the CBCP allows reproduction of any and all religious images. Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+. A photographer would not in his right sense give to the internet for public use or consumption, like Facebook, etc. big or his or her original images. I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small. In fact, the reasons I uploaded them here in Commons are: a) I love the sun images, and I desire to share beautiful pics in Commons when the sun fails me in my photography, b) I test the speed of the falling internet here, and c) most of the times, I fail to meet on time the parish priest of the Church, so I get permission from the office or the parishioners to get their pics of the this church or the priest. However, they would not allow their names to be revealed for privacy. Second, I asked about 3 lawyers of a legal department of the Copyright law office, and they opined that images, like books must comply with copyright deposit rules and regulations issued due to the Law requirement. More importantly, photographs of churches of priests and parishioners in churches when uploaded or copied for religious and moral reasons, etc. are not violative of the law, especially when the size is so small. Why should I get from the internet small images when I personally spend huge sums to go to the church and landmark sites, and spent more money in uploading these images from 11 pm to 4am daily more or less? In good faith, I love them and I ponder legally, that there is no obstacle in law, when I share them in Commons, Fair use so to speak. I do have the express but verbal permission of the CBCP and the churches to use their pictures especially as I said, I failed to capture a sunny facade of the church and the parish priest was away when I shot. Let me put here some parts of the law as basis of my above submissions: [Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines[9] and [10] - Republic Act No. 8293. K: Photographs and cinematographic works made in a process similar to photography - Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for fair use of copyrighted material. The criteria for fair use is almost identical to the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law, with the exception that even unpublished works qualify as fair use under Philippine copyright law.[11]SEC. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. CHAPTER IX DEPOSIT AND NOTICE SEC. 191. Registration and Deposit with National Library and the Supreme Court Library. –SEC. 192. Notice of Copyright. –xxx.)]
- IN FINE, I respectfully submit the above legal argument. And I stress that I failed to get a written legal opinion from the CBCP and our Copyright law office. I think this mater had already been exhaustively talked about or discussed by the editors in [12] Tambayan. I have no objection to the fair discretion of older editors to delete my above images, for the good of Commons. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- com:fair use is not allowed on commons therefore they need to be Delete. (Fair use is allowed on en.wiki, though) --McZusatz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrightviolations (com:fair use) McZusatz (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 8
[edit]Suspicious early uploads of Ramon FVelasquez. While his recognized tool is Nikon COOLPIX AW100 (or Sony DSC-T200 for his 2012-era uploads like File:Churchpuljf.JPG), the following nominated images have either different camera models or are missing exif metadata (and some very small resolutions). These may have come from his apprentices or other people then passed on to him. No indication of proper copyright transfer via COM:VRTS correspondence if this is true. Likely similar case to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez#Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 2. See the nomination proper for added details.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
It can be noted that Ramon FVelasquez's reply to the second thread above seems self-contradictory: "Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+." and afterwards then "I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small." Plus he introduced the concept of fair use, even if fair use is eternally not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 9
[edit]Photos of non-descript darkness and objects/person by a former sock of Judgefloro (talk · contribs). Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. More usable photos are found at Category:Casa Hacienda de Tejeros.
- File:TejerosConventionjf3547 03.JPG
- File:TejerosConventionjf3530 02.JPG
- File:TejerosConventionjf3530 01.JPG
- File:TejerosConventionjf3512 13.JPG
- File:TejerosConventionjf3512 07.JPG
- File:TejerosConventionjf3512 06.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poor quality, objects obscured by dark side of the objects not facing the sunlight, and the sunlight caused glare in the image. COM:NOTUSED and out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Zambalesajf0146 20.JPG
- File:Zambalesajf0146 21.JPG
- File:SantaCruz,ZambalesChurchjf9958 08.JPG
- File:SantaCruz,ZambalesChurchjf9958 07.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs), group 1
[edit]Uploads by another sock of en:Florentino Floro, using Commons as cloud storage. Handling with a DR per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 93#JFVelasquez Floro.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest possible Keep High resolution photos of cityscapes, in scope. Somewhat properly categorized, at least one image I checked is in use of two wikipedias. Almost everything I checked are strongly differing views (not 500 photos of the same thing from the same persepective or so)
- No clue whats up with this AN report which alleges "severe mental illness", "ridicoulus categories", "terrible images" without any evidence whatsoever. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The images are immensely valuable, especially in the absence of representative photos for Wikipedia articles that use them. I go further to say that Judgefloro has contributed much valuable photos that are in current use in several Wikipedia articles. If categorization of photos is a problem, I would assist further as I am currently doing with several of his previous photos. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sanglahi86@TheImaCow I would rather be selective in which of the files of Judge Florentino Floro can be retained and which ones must go. The INUSE files in Wikimedia sites should be retained. Others must go, like File:Baliuagjf9406 30.JPG, which is just a random image of unidentifiable birds because those are too distant. I do not see any utility to this particular image, with obscured view of birds (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pigeons of the Philippines resting on overhead power lines). Though I agree that this DR in particular is too broad that reviewers may struggle which files are to be kept and which should go. By the way, thanks for categorization efforts Sanglahi86. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all in on deleting low quality images, but nominating hundreds of images by a user because there might be some one or two low quality/oos images is absurd (I checked plenty more, and still haven't found a single one, other than the birds), and appears to be based on some personal grudge instead of actual larger-scale problems with the images. ~TheImaCow (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sanglahi86@TheImaCow I would rather be selective in which of the files of Judge Florentino Floro can be retained and which ones must go. The INUSE files in Wikimedia sites should be retained. Others must go, like File:Baliuagjf9406 30.JPG, which is just a random image of unidentifiable birds because those are too distant. I do not see any utility to this particular image, with obscured view of birds (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pigeons of the Philippines resting on overhead power lines). Though I agree that this DR in particular is too broad that reviewers may struggle which files are to be kept and which should go. By the way, thanks for categorization efforts Sanglahi86. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Even though this is an organizational nightmare. The useless images need to be nominated separately, but deleting the whole lot of them is not going to be a net benefit to the project. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural Kept per discussion. Please narrow down significantly to the useless files, and not the in use ones or the useful ones. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lolitalacositamalabarita (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios.
- File:Jjhhcjvzxbvzjk.jpg
- File:Liam.jpg
- File:Harry love.jpg
- File:Gjfdgfdjnfgj.jpg
- File:Niall super cool.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
it violates the "moral issues" given in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people; see also rationale in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bobom3.jpg MarmotteNZ (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Although this would not be a problem in the USA because it is in public, I see no nned to keep a potentially controversial image of a commons car. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Godzilla slide
[edit]- File:Kurihama Hana-no-Kuni Flower World Godzilla 1.JPG
- File:Kurihama Hana-no-Kuni Flower World Godzilla 2.JPG
- File:Kurihama Hana-no-Kuni Flower World Godzilla 3.JPG
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. --Vantey (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of uploader. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 05:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Promotional image.—Bill william comptonTalk 16:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep The subject is referred on a number of websites such as this one. Also he is his own website. Therefore notability is clearly established. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
- Apparently, Wikipedia doesn't consider the subject notable enough. Merely being "referred on a number of websites" doesn't make a subject notable.—Bill william comptonTalk 16:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I declined renaming of this file because of the DR. I would like to see the outcome of this DR. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: Aside from the notability issue, and the messy watermark, we have an uploader who claims to be the subject and the copyright holder -- that seems unlikely. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, that's not a watermark at all, it's text in the image for artistic purposes. Penyulap ☏ 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dj Dani Algerie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image gallery, self promotion by uploader. Out of project scope.
- File:Dj Dani Cdj 800 - 2013 Matériel Dj.JPG
- File:Dj Dani-Mike Up 2012-2013-2014.jpg
- File:Dj Dani 2013 - 2014 New Album.jpg
- File:Dani Dj 2013 Pioneer Cdj 800 Km2.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 07:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Okrilpader (talk · contribs)
[edit]Entirely random/steganographical uploads
- File:Mexican Binary 2384.JPG
- File:Poetic Runway 456.JPG
- File:Proceed Straw 2467.JPG
- File:Driver Median 1162.JPG
- File:Going Pilgrim 5282.JPG
- File:Careful Serene 1693.JPG
- File:Crown Divine 1556.JPG
- File:Convict Haggard 1771.JPG
- File:Fierce Rampant 347.JPG
- File:Bluff Maple 7619.JPG
- File:Erratic Trial 4770.JPG
- File:Party Whole 4769.JPG
- File:Export Trunk 3461.JPG
- File:Absence Immune 7337.JPG
- File:Sitter Sorry 411.JPG
- File:Alight Sleeper 8027.JPG
- File:Coming Nothing 1255.JPG
- File:Freak Theory 6527.JPG
- File:Bitter Metric 2896.JPG
- File:Nervous Stale 7803.JPG
- File:Organic Rebel 1497.JPG
- File:Marine Quart 2296.JPG
- File:Naught Random 4647.JPG
- File:Bronze Colon 5262.JPG
- File:Pendant Rocky 4022.JPG
- File:Abrupt Shock 8607.JPG
- File:Beaver Corner 3270.JPG
- File:Pottery Surface 6612.JPG
- File:Convict Waist 5286.JPG
- File:Quiver Tiger 2446.JPG
- File:Sample Smash 1762.JPG
- File:Queen Staple 2939.JPG
- File:Agent Concur 3624.JPG
- File:Cunning Jolly 6779.JPG
- File:Suite Worthy 5784.JPG
- File:Chicken Ledger 7441.JPG
- File:Draft Gospel 3153.JPG
- File:Quick Rogue 391.JPG
- File:Compact Livery 2617.JPG
- File:Harsh Lyric 8151.JPG
- File:Budge Variant 4370.JPG
- File:Crude Phantom 3663.JPG
- File:Grease Voodoo 330.JPG
- File:Budget Winding 748.JPG
- File:Rather Windy 8657.JPG
- File:Barrel Blame 6918.JPG
- File:First Fusion 1696.JPG
- File:Stock Trout 3598.JPG
moogsi (blah) 12:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 27 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)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 11.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 10.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 09.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 08.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 07.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 06.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 04.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 05.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 01.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 02.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 03.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal vanity photos. This is not Facebook. Out of scope.
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 04.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 01.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 02.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 20.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 19.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 18.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 17.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 11.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 09.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 10.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 16.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 13.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 14.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 15.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 12.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 08.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 07.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 05.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 04.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 22.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 03.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 23.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 02.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 01.JPG
- File:Salman Haider 02.JPG
- File:Salman Haider 01.JPG
- File:Throw Light On Luv.jpg 05.tif
- File:Throw Light On Luv.jpg 07.tif
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wrong file format; Ogg Theora would be correct. 84.61.140.213 15:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: GIF is actually Commons preferred format for animated images, see Commons:File_formats#GIF. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giovanni Bertizzolo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos and advertisement, not own work.
- File:Atlete team.JPG
- File:Stabilimento Rigoni di Asiago a Foza.jpg
- File:Raccolta fragole bio Rigoni di Asiago in Bulgaria.jpg
- File:Produzione Fiordifrutta Rigoni di Asiago.jpg
- File:Produzione a Foza della Rigoni di Asiago.jpg
- File:Hokey in line Rigoni di Asiago.jpg
- File:Hockey ghiaccio Rigoni di Asiago.jpg
- File:Ecovita Bulgaria.jpg
- File:Ecoterra Bulgaria.jpg
- File:Da sinistra Luigi, Antonio, Andrea e Mario Rigoni.jpg
- File:Coltivazione bio Rigoni di Asiago in Bulgaria.jpg
- File:Ciclismo Rigoni di Asiago.jpg
- File:Centro logistico Rigoni di Asiago ad Albaredo d'Adige.jpg
- File:Centro direzionale Rigoni di Asiago ad Asiago.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Commentwe must ask for permission (if you suspect copyright infringement) but I think that Bertizzolo has rights and authority to grant permission, just was not aware of having to do
- useful images without overt promotional references (photo production, photo stabiimento, pictures of agriculture) there are no watermarks promotional images are suitable for commons and useful to the related projects. Also I do not find promotional--Pava (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep He was responsible for PASTA ZARA[13] (and we have deleted the images), is most likely responsible for communication RIGONI ASIAGO now, we simply give us permission, do not delete images--Pava (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete So many different camara can't be own work. We would need OTRS from each authors, which is merely impossible to get. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, but i reported this thread to the Italian company Rigoni di Asiago, directly concerned the question. Please wait a week before going on thank you --Pava (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Many different cameras and systems, obviously not the work of one photographer. Since the uploader has claimed "own work" we cannot rely on anything said in these. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Recent sculpture. No FoP in Italia. Dereckson (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have the permission of the scultor. I copy this here, with the public direction of the Author (cfr. http://www.stefanopierotti.com/). Thank you.--Tenan (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC) ________________________________________ De: stefano pierotti [14] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de marzo de 2013 9:01 Asunto: R: Saluto e domanda su foto in Wikipedia di una statua sua
è solo un piacere che vengano pubblicate foto della mia scultura. Se fosse possibile inserire anche il nome dell'autore, forse sarebbe più completa l'informazione. Grazie stefano pIEROTTI
- It is not clear what kind of permission he has granted. Please sort this out with OTRS. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tenan, see Commons:Email templates. It should show in your best language.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! I have problems of time to do this process... Excuse me for the lackness of practicity in these matters... I supposed that all was easy (take a picture and put it in Wikipedia) but now I begin to understand that there are a lot of complesity and dificulties in the project...--Tenan (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you read Commons:Freedom of panorama you will find that in many countries you need OTRS permission from the sculptor to upload images of their statues to commons even though you took the picture. Many countries require it for buildings as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! I have problems of time to do this process... Excuse me for the lackness of practicity in these matters... I supposed that all was easy (take a picture and put it in Wikipedia) but now I begin to understand that there are a lot of complesity and dificulties in the project...--Tenan (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: A very nice image. I hope that the sculptor gives permission to restore it on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dmitry89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://web.archive.org/web/20090515105930/http://www.intuit.ru/department/network/cnat/3/cnat_3.html Image might be {{PD-ineligible}}, as facts/data are not eligible for copyright. There should be discussion of whether the arrangement of elements is sufficiently original as to generate a copyright. Эlcobbola talk 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple for copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
unused user images, out of scope
Didym (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dmitry89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://web.archive.org/web/20090515105930/http://www.intuit.ru/department/network/cnat/3/cnat_3.html Image might be {{PD-ineligible}}, as facts/data are not eligible for copyright. There should be discussion of whether the arrangement of elements is sufficiently original as to generate a copyright. Эlcobbola talk 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: too simple . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong photograph name Watchtutor (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Physik_Lichtbrechungen_Grafik.JPG Watchtutor (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Derivative file: File:Stanley Baldwin 01.jpg
The creator died in 1958, so it's still copyrighted in the source country. This could be messy, as the file is used on a lot of pages. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- this is a photo from the Bain archive Library of Congress, fixed with custom PD license. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: LOC says there are no restrictions. Their source is the Bain collection, which comes from a USA news service, so the first publication was probably in the USA and there is no notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TWIN Production (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (6).jpg
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (5).jpg
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (4).jpg
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (2).jpg
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (3).jpg
- File:TWIN NAN PhaNith (1).jpg
- File:TWIN Production Nith.jpg
- File:TWIN Production Nar.jpg
- File:TWIN Production Sneha tea pun neng.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:30, 21 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) 17:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The name of the subject appears to be Parvana Ahmadi. But the above points appear to be valid unless the uploader explains how it is own work and whether the image fits on any Wikis. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
- Did the uploader give any information about the image's source anywhere? --High Contrast (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No description, no cat, not useful. Users claims own work, which seems unlikely. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Brussels
[edit]These images show the interior or exterior of a building in Belguim. Some of them also show artworks inside or outside the building. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 05.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 06.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 07.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 08.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 09.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 10.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 17.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 18.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 52.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 53.JPG
File:Berlin Wall outside European parliament.jpg(included by mistake)- File:DSC 0252.JPG
- File:EP-Brussels-101.jpg
- File:EP-Brussels-102.jpg
- File:EP-Brussels-103.jpg
- File:Europaparlament Nr 5.jpg
- File:Europaparlament Nr 7.jpg
- File:Parl europ.JPG
- File:Parlamento europeu-2.jpg
- File:Parlamento europeu.jpg
- File:Sculture by the European Parliament 1.jpg
- File:Sculture by the European Parliament 2.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- File:Berlin Wall outside European parliament.jpg Dosn't show a building or artwork, it's a historical artifact Oxyman (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that one shouldn't have been included. The Berlin Wall is from 1961, but such a small bit probably fails COM:TOO. It should be marked with {{Non-free graffiti}}, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I Tagged the image with {{Non-free graffiti}} can it be omitted from this list for deletion now? Oxyman (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that one shouldn't have been included. The Berlin Wall is from 1961, but such a small bit probably fails COM:TOO. It should be marked with {{Non-free graffiti}}, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: all but the one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum. These files showed either the outdoor of the parliament (and so violates architect copyright, as it's in not-FoP country) or contemporary artwork (sculptures).
- Three files restored. The author of these pictures were puzzled about this deletion and we were considering to recommend local French Wikipedia upload. After a review of these files, to see if it enters in the French Wikimedia EDP, I restored these files, which show the indoor of the parliament, without any artwork. The main subject of the pictures being the parliament as a deliberate assembly and workplace ; there are architectural items: the columns in the background but they are de minimis. --Dereckson (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
SVG already exists at File:Signal B49.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
See author field: "ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier". Uploaded in batch of blatant copyvios (see user talk and deleted contribs), mostly from http://www.stadtbauatelier.de. Portrait images have completely different camera EXIF data, some images are low resolution with no camera EXIF (e.g., File:Fernmeldegebäude Ludwigsburg.jpg), others are derivative works (e.g., File:Master Entwicklungsplan für Quartier de Liesse.jpg is derivative of the model), etc.
- File:Mario Torres.jpg
- File:Ximi Lu Portrait.jpg
- File:Philipp Dechow Portrait.jpg
- File:Yajin Zhang Portrait.jpg
- File:Seog-Jeong Lee Portrait.jpg
- File:Dita Leyh Portrait.jpg
- File:Michael Trieb Portrait.jpg
- File:Fernmeldegebäude Ludwigsburg.jpg
- File:Rabat New Town Planning.jpg
- File:Planung der Yulong New Town.JPG
- File:Parlamentsgebäude Bagdad.jpg
- File:Smart City Nansha.jpg
- File:Konzeptplanung für Changan .jpg
- File:Ferienvilla auf Gran Canaria.jpg
- File:New Jiang Wan Town.jpg
- File:Masterplan für Tangshan Nanhu Eco-City.jpg
- File:Masterplan für Gangseo-Gu.jpg
- File:Potsdam Stadtentwicklungsplanung.jpg
- File:Master Entwicklungsplan für Quartier de Liesse.jpg
- File:Potsdam Panoramaplan.jpg
- File:Rahmenplan zur Stadtgestaltung Leonberg.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed
, with the one exception I marked above. The portraits appear to be scans from previously printed materials, so are probably copyvios at the source. All of the renderings, plans, and the model have a copyright. There is no evidence of CC-BY-SA (as claimed) or any other acceptable license at www.stadtbauatelier.de . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looked more closely at the image after a nudge from elcobbola -- I didn't really see the white outlines earlier. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Restored by OTRS permission. --Krd 12:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paul-Henri Spaak building
[edit]These photos show the interior or exterior of a building in Belgium. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Europaparlament Nr 9.jpg
- File:European Parliament.jpg
- File:Europäescht Parlament Bréissel CROPPED.jpg
- File:Stairways in the PHS building.jpg
- File:Stairways in the PHS building2.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Altiero Spinelli building
[edit]These images show a building in Belgium. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 03.JPG
- File:Bruxelles-Euro-Parliament.jpg
- File:EP AS E.jpg
- File:EP AS Enterance.jpg
- File:EP AS W.jpg
- File:Europaparlament Nr 11.jpg
- File:Europaparlament Nr 2.jpg
- File:Hall 1G3, Altiero Spinelli.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:József Antall building
[edit]These images show a building in Belgium. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Willy Brandt building
[edit]These images show buildings in Brussels. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:EP D4.jpg
- File:Willy Brandt building European Parliament Brussels.jpg
- File:Willy Brandt building.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Espace Léopold
[edit]These images show buildings in Belgium. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 04.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 11.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 12.JPG
- File:2007 07 16 parlament europejski bruksela 13.JPG
- File:Belgium - Brussels - European Parliament.jpg
- File:Brussel Europ Parlament.jpg
- File:Brussel.jpg
- File:EP GdLux.jpg
- File:EU Parlament 1.jpg
- File:EU Parlament 2.jpg
- File:EU Parlament 3.jpg
- File:European parliament 002.JPG
- File:European Parliament Park 1.jpg
- File:European Parliament Park 2.jpg
- File:European parliament.jpg
- File:Konrad Adenauer footbridge.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Upscaled copy of http://batlyrics.com/v_images/artist/2/37/23735/tg4-3-big.jpg and probably elsewhere. Sinnamon (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The image should be kept because there is no other image and that is the only image that can illustrate the group better, so I hope an administrator will agree to keep the image because I created the image myself and released it under the free licenses, Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike Unported 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License.TrackWarrior768 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Due to the fact that this image can be found elsewhere and that it has no metadata and has the size commonly associated with downscaled photos you would need to at least follow COM:OTRS. Sinnamon (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file should be kept now I got permission from COM:OTRS to use the file.TrackWarrior768 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Faking an OTRS permission is a serious violation of trust here. If you do it again, or anything similar, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MontseBassols (talk · contribs)
[edit]Indoor images of an art gallery located in Argentina. COM:FOP#Argentina is specified only to buildings - sculptures and other works might be protected by copyright. Here, I am unsure if "in" or "out" Commons:De minimis´s-scope.
- File:Galería espacio interno 3.jpg
- File:Galería (espacio interno 2).JPG
- File:Galería (espacio interno 1).jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giacomo Piccoli (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - possibly out of scope - collection of artworks without permission - small sizes - no indication that these are by a notable artist
- File:Iperealismo Soggettivale.JPG
- File:Anaprospettico Sentimentale.JPG
- File:Quadro3.jpg
- File:Quadro2.jpg
- File:Quadro1.jpg
- File:Quadro5 Sesto Senso.JPG
- File:Quadro4 Sinusoide Sinuosa.JPG
- File:Quadro2 Libera interpretazione della realtà.JPG
- File:Quardo1 Il politico errante.JPG
INeverCry 20:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mdanishtaha (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - also questionable scope at these tiny sizes/low quality
- File:Ali Hijwari R.A Tomb Picture in Night ( From Left Hand Side ).jpg
- File:Reciting Holy Quran Near Tomb of Ali Hijwari R.A.jpg
- File:Tree Near the tomb.jpg
- File:Ali Hijwari R.A Tomb Picture in Night ( From Right Hand Side ).jpg
- File:Corridor from Tomb to Mosque ( Left Hand Side ).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 20:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
possibly out of scope - none in use - questionable educational value
- File:Aquise-clearing-01.PNG
- File:Clearing.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-10.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-09.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-07.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-08.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-03.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-05.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-06.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-04.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-02.PNG
- File:Aqise-ordertypes-01.PNG
- File:Aqise-opening.PNG
- File:Aqise-zeitfenster.PNG
- File:Aqsie-order-zeiten.PNG
- File:Orderbuch-mitarbeiter.PNG
- File:Orderbuch-nutzer.PNG
- File:Kursfortschreibung.PNG
- File:Otc-trade-entrys.PNG
- File:Order-limited-add-02.PNG
- File:Order-limited-add-01.PNG
- File:Order-limited-close.PNG
- File:Order-limited-hidden.PNG
- File:Antares Order Beschränkungn.png
INeverCry 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashish.tomar86 (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - the colored graphs are taken from internet - the 4 logos are questionable as to authorship and scope - the text graphs could be reproduced with wikitables - etc
- File:Overall Score Board.PNG
- File:Question 1 Result.PNG
- File:Match 4 1.png
- File:Match 4 2.png
- File:Match 3 1.png
- File:Match 3 2.png
- File:Batsmen.PNG
- File:Wicketkeepers.PNG
- File:Match 2 1.png
- File:Match 2 2.png
- File:Dravid reds 2.png
- File:Dravid reds 1.png
- File:Players List.PNG
- File:Dravid browns.PNG
- File:Dravid greens.PNG
- File:Dravid Reds.PNG
- File:Dravid blues.PNG
- File:MPL 2012.gif
INeverCry 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 21:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Veronica Rojas Hernandez (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
INeverCry 21:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Reckless-A (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - no educational value
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.3.4.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.3.2.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.3.7.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.2.9.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.2.6.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.1.2.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.2.3.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 4.1.5.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 3.5.2.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 3.4.4.pdf
- File:English 1 Sem 2 - 3.3.8.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 7.1.2 exam.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 6.4.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 6.2.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 6.3.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 5.5.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 5.1.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 6.1.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 5.3.2.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 5.4.3.pdf
- File:Earth Science Sem 1 - 5.2.2.pdf
INeverCry 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amandine-Valcke (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 21:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Both images are a derivative work of the Estrella Galicia logo. However, it should be assessed whether such a logo goes beyond the threshold of originality (I think so as it's not comprised by mere geometrical shapes)
- File:Depor entrenando Vestiario fora casa 91h43wGL.jpg
- File:Depor vestiario A Coruña eijj8732wGL.jpg
Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- They are derivative work of Deportivo de La Coruña logo, too. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Probably replaced with other versions.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol deseño.svg
- File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol versión.svg
- File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol.png
- File:Escudo Deportivo da Coruña, Riazor vesion.svg
- File:Deseño Deportivo Lugo.svg
Spanish football club logos. Even if they were handcrafted by the uploader they are copyrighted by their respective owners. Banjo (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol deseño.svg, File:Escudo Deportivo da Coruña, Riazor vesion.svg and File:Deseño Deportivo Lugo.svg, as per
- User:Elisardojm's comment:
they are handcrafted drawings of the "definition" of the team logos, not copied from any site. Same as what is done with galician council emblems. Copyright of the logos resides in the original images from those teams posted in their websites/shirts/etc., copyright that applies to the images themselves but not to the definition
Keep --Elisardojm (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol versión.svg and File:Escudo Racing de Ferrol.png as duplicates. Banjo (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete No es el mismo caso de los escudos de los organismos públicos (como ayuntamientos, etc). Las descripciones heráldicas de los organismos públicos son de dominio público (Artículo 13. Exclusiones: No son objeto de propiedad intelectual las disposiciones legales o reglamentarias y sus correspondientes proyectos, las resoluciones de los órganos jurisdiccionales y los actos, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los organismos públicos, así como las traducciones oficiales de todos los textos anteriores). Los escudos de los clubs deportivos no. Son diseños, propiedad de los diseñadores y de los propios clubs, y están protegidos por las leyes que regulan la propiedad intelectual. Los archivos cargados por el User:Nemigo son obras derivadas (véase Wikimedia:Derivative works)Both arguments have their weight. I'm keeping my initial proposition as it was and abstaining from voting either way (except on duplicated files). I leave the final decision to the more experienced admins here in commons. ☣Banjo tell me 17:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Por otra parte, los derechos de autor que tienen los escudos de los equipos de fútbol se mantienen en las "interpretaciones" que hacen sus artistas de estos blasones, por eso no se pueden copiar de sus páginas web ni de otras páginas de internet para subirlos a Commons.
Y la última parte, existen también unos derechos comerciales, la marca comercial, pero que son derechos que no afectan a Commons porque no son derechos de autor. Ejemplos de estos casos los tenemos en los cientos de logotipos de marcas comerciales que están subidos a Commons porque no superan el umbral de originalidad pero que mantienen sus derechos comerciales para los usos en los que se aplica esa legislación. Saludos,______________
Deleted not own work, no sources given. If these are indeed logos of these various places, they're not own work of uploader. If someone wishes to upload properly attibuted images with links to the license pages of the website from which they were taken, that permits Commons admins to understand the intention of the property owner. With only own work as source, these do not fulfill the requirements of COM:EVID. Deleted COM:PRP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Football club logos uploaded by Nemigo
[edit]- File:CF Mesón do Vento Ordes.svg
- File:SD Clube Ordes.svg
- File:CCD CURTIS.png
- File:Betanzos CF deseño.svg
- File:CF PONTEVEDRA deseño.svg
- File:CD OURENSE escudo.svg
Spanish football club logos. Even if they were handcrafted by the uploader they are copyrighted by their respective owner.
Delete --. HombreDHojalata.talk 08:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep The logos hasn't surpass the threshold of originality and them are in PD, it are only trademarks. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doesn't make sense to have a non-original logo that does not distinguish the club from other club logos. Uploader claim to be the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Playa y Faro Cabo Polonio.jpg
- File:Fortaleza de Santa Teresa.jpg
- File:La Coronilla.jpg
- File:La Pedrera Uruguay.jpg
- File:Costa de oro.jpg
INeverCry 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SchwankGmbH (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Pereiralibertad.jpg
- File:Sanjosepereira.jpg
- File:Pereiragz.jpg
- File:Pereiralago.jpg
- File:Gobpereira.jpg
- File:Bloque s utp.jpg
INeverCry 22:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
- File:Comfort Station.JPG
- File:Solar EV Charging Station.JPG
- File:Solar Emergency Response Unit (SERU).JPG
- File:The Corona.JPG
- File:Solar Palapa.JPG
- File:Powershade 16.JPG
- File:Solar Cabana.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 22:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umairforever (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal/promotional images
- File:Umair Asif Karachi.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Karachi 2.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Islamabad home.jpg
- File:UMAIR ASIF 1 (3).jpg
- File:Umair asif in Nathia Gali Snow.jpg
- File:Umair Asif In Ayub Park.jpg
- File:Umair Asif In Valley.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Fog Picture.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Cinepax.jpg
- File:Umair asif NathiaGalo.jpg
- File:Umair Asif in Snow.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Image Pictures.jpg
- File:Umair asif6.jpg
- File:Umair asif picture.jpg
- File:Umair asif2.jpg
- File:Umair asif1.jpg
- File:Umair asif.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Documentary Child Labour.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Media.jpg
- File:Umair Asif Islamabad.jpg
- File:Umair Asif.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Halah Alnasir (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - large collection of personal artworks and several personal images - 25 of them are displayed on a userpage, but this seems to go beyond what userpage image policy allows
- File:Halah.pdf
- File:Halah.jpg
- File:العنقاء.jpg
- File:الطريق.jpg
- File:العراف.jpg
- File:إيمان.jpg
- File:تلفزيون.jpg
- File:بعد المفترق.jpg
- File:جيرة.jpg
- File:جفاف.jpg
- File:حوار.jpg
- File:حلم.jpg
- File:حيرة.jpg
- File:رائدة الفضاء الآتي.jpg
- File:سيرك.jpg
- File:صحراء.jpg
- File:طفولة حب.jpg
- File:صحيفة.jpg
- File:عبقرية.jpg
- File:عريس.jpg
- File:طلاق.jpg
- File:مورق بما مضى.jpg
- File:عشق.jpg
- File:عفاف.jpg
- File:لمبادا.jpg
- File:عنصرية.jpg
- File:مسرحية.jpg
- File:هجرة.jpg
- File:وشم.jpg
- File:صور غلاف ولوحات الكتاب.jpg
- File:الغرير.jpg
- File:إمرأة.jpg
- File:شهرزاد في الصحافة السعودية.jpg
- File:العالم الآخر.jpg
- File:MG 5094+ color+ copy 2 with copy.JPG
INeverCry 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mustafa.ouhssaine (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of this user's uploads appear to be copyright violations, with clear web sources or with dubious "own work" claims, or just not very likely to be available under the license claimed. It's possible the user has scanned old prints himself, but not likely that he has the copyright to those prints.
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR5.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR6.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR4.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR3.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR1.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa DR2.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa Qatar Club.jpg
- File:Mohamed BerrajaaENN.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa EN.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa entraineur.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 8.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 7.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 4.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 5.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 6.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 3.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 2.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 1.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa Club Africain Ac.jpg
- File:Berrajaa nessma.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa Media.JPG
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa Club Africain.JPG
- File:Mohamed berrajaa099.JPG
- File:Mohamed berrajaa Asad katari.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa04.JPG
- File:Mohamed berrajaa06.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa03.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa M.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 01.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa 02.jpg
- File:Mohamed Berrajaa.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa entraineur.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa kawkab de Marrakech KACEM.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa Club Africain.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa Club Africain CA.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa elsad el katari.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa equipenationale.jpg
- File:Mohamed berrajaa equipe national v.jpg
- File:Berrajaa Mohamed.jpg
Rd232 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a recent Vietnamese stamp, which appears to be in copyright. See Commons_talk:Stamps/Public_domain#Vietnam. Rd232 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Licence wrong. Modern stamp of Vietnam, presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad location Loaded twice Daniel Villafruela (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to File:Saint Étienne-2 rue Michelet-20121003.jpg JuTa 21:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tegel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: According to stated source
This may need some extra discussion. Does the logo meet the threshold of originality or not? I'm aware of two relevant court rulings. At one point, File:Upphovsrätt på teknisk ritning.png was found to be too simple to be copyrighted.[15] At another point, the art on the Sundborn plates and cups was found to be protected by copyright.[16] I suspect that this logo might be something in between. Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily as "no license". JuTa 08:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
non-encyclopedic, offensive RomanM82 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No/questionable scope. Fry1989 eh? 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse Me ? , it shows the levant area , not because we had dispute you want to delete every thing .GhiathArodaki (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you explain the meaning of the juxtaposition of the map and flag in this case? In particular, does it serve an educational purpose? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is levant, and the syrian flag appears because in our countries when we say levant we always remeber syria , it is the true original levant , before WWI.GhiathArodaki (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is the educational use case? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is levant, and the syrian flag appears because in our countries when we say levant we always remeber syria , it is the true original levant , before WWI.GhiathArodaki (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- As any map , Showing the levant before WWI , many people wants to see Levant map before WWIGhiathArodaki (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- GhiathArodaki, if I wanted to delete everything of yours because we had a dispute, I would have nominated everything of yours. There are several uploads by you which I have not and do not plan to nominate for deletion. In any case, this map is historically anachronistic because the flag you have chosen to super-impose didn't even exist until 1958, but you are claiming this is a map of the Levant before the First World War. Fry1989 eh? 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, Delete as redundant with existing maps of the Levant which do not have a gratuitous flag superimposed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- In that case,
- GhiathArodaki, if I wanted to delete everything of yours because we had a dispute, I would have nominated everything of yours. There are several uploads by you which I have not and do not plan to nominate for deletion. In any case, this map is historically anachronistic because the flag you have chosen to super-impose didn't even exist until 1958, but you are claiming this is a map of the Levant before the First World War. Fry1989 eh? 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- As any map , Showing the levant before WWI , many people wants to see Levant map before WWIGhiathArodaki (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- i know there are many maps for Levant , but it is western levant , as there is no hatay on it , no mousle , and no northen syria island that was took by turkey.GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
A map of the irredentist dreams of Antun Saadeh's SSNP is at File:SadheeSYRIA.jpg. If File:Levant Flag Map.png is nothing but GhiathArodaki's personal fantasy, then it should be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- it's not from my personal fantasy , it's the map of levant "Belad asham" Before WWI , OR If you don't understand it like this , Before the cut of countries and creation of syria and lebanon and jordan and palestine and the other countries , and the capital was damascus.GhiathArodaki (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that flag wasn't invented until 1958, when it was an Egypt+Syria flag, not a "Greater Syria" flag. That flag has never flown over all that terroritory, which makes it somewhat problematic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK , I'll reuploaded without flag.GhiathArodaki (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
uploads by VBLPhoenix
[edit]- File:S.S. Juan Pablo II Papa.png
- File:S.S. Benedicto XVI Papa.png
- File:S.S. Francisco I Escudo Papal.png
- File:Coat of arms St. Montefalco convent.png
- File:Custodia de Tierra Santa.png
- File:ORDO FRATRVM MINORVM.JPG
- File:Escudo de España (Heráldico).png
- File:Escudo Franciscanos.png
- File:Escudo de Las cinco llagas.png
- File:C. de Santa María de la Rábida.png
- File:Renato Boccardo ARZOBISPO.png
- File:Cardenal Luis de la Lastra y Cuesta.png
- File:Diego de Rojas y Contreras OBISPO.png
- File:Carlos Amigo Vallejo CARDENAL.png
- File:Juan del Río Martín ARZOBISPO.png
- File:S.S. Juan Pablo I Papa.png
- File:S.S. Pio XII Papa.png
- File:S.S. Pablo VI Papa.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Watermarks as a signature of the author/uploader are not allowed per the Alexander Liptak episode, and we all know how that went. Commons is not the place for self-promotion. There are also SVGs available of several of these images. Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Custodia de Tierra Santa.png -- It's ridiculous to delete the whole file over small initials in the bottom right corner which could easily be removed without violating licensing terms. Anyway, signatures are not actually forbidden -- they're just discouraged, and any form of licensing which would prevent others from removing signatures is forbidden here. Not sure how justified it is to blame VBLPhoenix for Alexander Liptak's sins... AnonMoos (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not blaming one person for another's sins, this just isn't proper, and considering how bad that thing with Liptak blew up, I don't want to experience it again so I'm trying to avoid it front up. Fry1989 eh? 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- If there's no evidence that VBLPhoenix intends to try to retroactively alter licensing terms, then the comparison with Liptak is pointless.. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- That was only part of the problem with Liptak, and it was a direct result of the fact he didn't like people asking him to remove his signature, and refusing to allow his works to be used on projects unless he did so. If this uploader has the same displeasure with requests for his signature to be removed, then no it is not a pointless comparison. If you want to talk to him about watermarks and the issues surrounding it, be my guest. Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- VBLPhoenix is under no obligation to remove his signature when requested by others. He's only required not to interfere when others remove such signatures. If Liptak hadn't tried to retroactively change licensing terms, then he would have been only a relatively minor annoyance here on Commons (as opposed to on Wikipedia). If VBLPhoenix is threatening to try to retroactively alter licensing terms, then it would seem most appropriate to discuss this on the "User problems" noticeboard. If VBLPhoenix is not threatening to try to retroactively alter licensing terms, then this while exercise seems semi-pointless. AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you completely missed my point, and possibly misunderstood what I said all together. Liptak's meltdown was a direct response to people asking him to remove his watermakr, and not allowing his files to be used on projects unless he would do so. He was not obligated to remove them, he could still keep his files hosted on Commons with the signatures, but if he wanted his works used in articles the signatures had to go. That's what set everything in motion. Now with this uploader, I never said he was obligated to remove them, he too can have them hosted on Commons, but if he wants his works used on projects, he will have to remove the signatures. If he refuses, but still tries to get his files used like Liptak did, we're essentially facing the same problem. Fry1989 eh? 01:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's true that "if he wants his works used on projects, he will have to remove the signatures". Different Wikipedias etc. in different languages may have different policies, and any useful files which are needed to fill a gap are likely to have their signatures removed by others. And I really don't see any reason to delete the files as a precaution against the possibility that he may at some indefinite time in the future go on a Liptak-like rampage, if there's no evidence NOW that he intends to go on a Liptak-type rampage... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Then go be useful and talk to the uploader about the concerns raised with having personal signatures, don't continue to criticize me for raising what is a poignant historical problem that had a very explosive past. I'm not even convinced this isn't a new sock of Liptak that is laying low. He has tried to make at least two returns since his ban, so while it may sound like a conspiracy theory, it's not beyond impossible. Fry1989 eh? 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever -- the crunch issue with Liptak was Liptak's attempt to retroactively change licensing terms. Everything else might have been finessed, or if not, would not have risen above the level of an ordinary Commons contretemps in any case. If there's no evidence that VBLPhoenix is seeking to retroactively change licensing terms, then you're looking for trouble where it doesn't yet exist. If you think VBLPhoenix is a sockpuppet, then request a sockpuppet investigation. But I don't see what this deletion nomination is supposed to accomplish... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course, the ever so productive dismissal of "whatever". Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever -- the crunch issue with Liptak was Liptak's attempt to retroactively change licensing terms. Everything else might have been finessed, or if not, would not have risen above the level of an ordinary Commons contretemps in any case. If there's no evidence that VBLPhoenix is seeking to retroactively change licensing terms, then you're looking for trouble where it doesn't yet exist. If you think VBLPhoenix is a sockpuppet, then request a sockpuppet investigation. But I don't see what this deletion nomination is supposed to accomplish... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Fry1989. Files with difficult to remove watermarks/signatures as a means of self-promotion are surely not within Commons' scope. By deleting these files, we err on the side of caution, preventing the possibility of another AlexanderLiptak episode. As always, the uploader is free to re-upload the files without a watermark, but until then, we have existing non-watermarked svgs of these files. -FASTILY 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
According to Hong Kong copyright law, works of unknown authorship enter the public domain after 50 years (in this case 1992). If it has never been published in the US then it will follow HK copyright laws, but if it was published in the US then it is possible it is still under copyright. The photo does not contain a copyright notice, but this does not preclude the possibility that a US published version did. Will someone review this situation please. Betty Logan (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: UNless there is a good reason to do so -- a USA person is the subject, for example -- we do not investigate whether it was published in the USA. In any event, there does not appear to be any notice, so even if it had been published in the USA it would be PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like a second opinion on this please. Firstly, it looks like it was obtained from an internet forum, so stating the author is "unknown" is not the same as simply not knowing who the author is. Secondly, just because this version of the photo does not contain a copyright notice doesn't mean that a US version didn't. The public domain guidelines state nothing about the subject of the photo being of US origin being a criteria. Is that how Commons approaches copyright? You can upload something off a foreign internet forum, and if you don't know anything about its authorship or US publication history you can pass it off as public domain? Can someone take another look at this one please, and attach the appropriate licensing if it is eligible to be hosted on Commons, because either way it still lacks a US copyright notice. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't profess to be an expert at copyrights, but I think that the burden of proof really ought to be upon any party who challenges that this is indeed not public domain. I have nothing to counter deletion if such proof were available, but it seems unreasonable to self-impose a criterion to favour deleting an image based on there being such potential US publication. Surely the absence of proof that the image has been published in the US is sufficient for it not to be deleted? --Ohconfucius (talk) 11:23, 30 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 (TALK) 22:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Reopened. If we are going to get proper reconsideration of the status of this image, the DR needs to stay open for the seven days specified for DRs, particularly since many of us have other obligations during Passover and Holy Week. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep As I said above, this is a photograph taken in Hong Kong in 1941, that is PD by Hong Kong rules and under the URAA. It is true that if it had been published in the USA with notice (which it does not have), then it would be under copyright in the USA. However, the same could apply to many foreign source images. Commons rules are that there must be no "significant" reason to believe that an image is not PD. In this case, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that this image was published in the USA, and, even if it was, it does not have notice.
The distinction between "unknown" and "anonymous", while often important, is not an issue under Hong Kong law.
As to User:Ohconfucius's comment above, please remember that the burden of proof is always on those who would keep an image, so that his or her comment is somewhat off base. In this case however, while the burden of proof is on me, the test of "significant doubt" has not been met. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree that the photo is necessarily in the HK public domain. Let's look at the HK law more closely: Hong Kong was under British rule until 1997, and as such English law applied, including copyright law. Indeed, Copyright law of Hong Kong states that the UK's 1956 copyright law will continue to apply to works created before 1997. Therefore, in this scenario it is UK copyright law that applies. Now, according to the 1956 copyright act, all artistic works are protected for life+50 years (50 years when the author cannot be determined). That leaves us with three possibilities:
- The author is not identifiable, and the photo entered HK PD in 1991.
- The author can be identified and is alive or died in the last fifty years so the photo is still under copyright in HK.
- The author died more than 50 years ago, meaning the photo has fallen into the HK PD between 1991 and 2013.
- However, I don't accept that uploading a photo posted on an internet forum makes the authorship unknown. The forum is not the original source of the photo i.e. it has to come from somewhere, for instance a magazine or newspaper something. If the magazine doesn't identify the photographer then fair enough, there is a reasonable argument that the author is unknown. If we take a possible US publication out of the equation, then the US copyright on the photo is largely dependent on the HK copyright. If the original publisher of the photo cannot be determined, then we cannot say the author is "unknown" with any real authority in this case. I have no real issue with the photo, but I have a real problem with people just uploading photos they find on forums. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Betty -- I think you are on much more solid ground arguing about the HK copyright status than the possibility that it was published in the USA. You make mostly valid points, but there's one problem. In almost all jurisdictions, in order to qualify for copyright term based on publication rather than the death of the author, the work must have been anonymous. We frequently have uploaders arguing that because the author is unknown, that we should apply that rule. But, as you say, "unknown" does not mean "anonymous" and we require the uploader to show that the work was actually published anonymously and that it is not a case of the author's name simply having been lost. However, Hong Kong is different. The law reads "unknown", not "anonymous", so that showing that the author is simply unknown is sufficient to shift the term to fifty years from publication, which is the case here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- English copyright law applies to HK work created before 1997, and there is a legal standard for an author being "unknown". The exact wording is that "the author will be considered unknown if actual identity cannot be ascertained by `reasonable enquiry’". Therefore, if you were to contact the magazine that published the photo and they said they had commissioned it or bought it but they no longer have the records then you would have a reasonable argument that the author is "unknown". However, if someone scans in a photo from a magazine and uploads it to a forum and you re-use that, I'm extremely doubtful that would meet a legal test. In this particular case I doubt there has been any enquiry whatsoever by the uploader, nevermind the type that would satisfy a court. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Betty -- I think you are on much more solid ground arguing about the HK copyright status than the possibility that it was published in the USA. You make mostly valid points, but there's one problem. In almost all jurisdictions, in order to qualify for copyright term based on publication rather than the death of the author, the work must have been anonymous. We frequently have uploaders arguing that because the author is unknown, that we should apply that rule. But, as you say, "unknown" does not mean "anonymous" and we require the uploader to show that the work was actually published anonymously and that it is not a case of the author's name simply having been lost. However, Hong Kong is different. The law reads "unknown", not "anonymous", so that showing that the author is simply unknown is sufficient to shift the term to fifty years from publication, which is the case here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted A useful and illuminating discussion. My conclusion, based on an understanding of UK copyright law, is that the last comment of Betty Logan is correct, and that research as to the possible photographer would have to be undertaken (and documented) in order for us to be able to keep this. It's a pity. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)