Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/04/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![35 File:"Mazhar.jpg".jpg](#File:"Mazhar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
)))423.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Request deletion for own page. GrapedApe (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: you can use {{Speedy}} for pages in your own user space of which you're the only editor. moogsi (blah) 03:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in the US for statues. russavia (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No longer needed, changes have been applied to File:Coat of arms of Abkhazia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicated of File:Coat of arms of Abkhazia.svg Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
A possible copyright violation. The date of the post at the source is April '11, but not sure about the copyright notice. Rahul Bott (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: cpvio JuTa 14:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
notienenombre Anasemola (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
notienenombre Anasemola (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
aus versehen doppelt hochgeladen Patrick Ch. Apfeld (PehAh) (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Dieses Bild ist leicht heller als File:Bad Godesberg, Kronprinzenstraße 25.jpg. Welches möchtest du behalten? Gruß--Leit (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Das hier: Kronprinzenstraße 25 (1).jpg kann weg. Und übrigens Danke fürs "Upgrade"!Patrick Ch. Apfeld (PehAh) (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Leit (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Georges Tourasse is dead in 1971. Copyright violation. 83.204.144.226 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio moogsi (blah) 22:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
{{copyvio|Photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images, see [http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/singer-britney-spears-arrives-at-the-21st-annual-elton-john-news-photo/162620165] and [http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/2820283/britney-spears-brown-hair-at-elton-john-oscars-party-2013-18/].}} Lucas S. msg 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied by Ronhjones. moogsi (blah) 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Cat is empty. All photos have been moved tt Category:Sint-Franciscuskerk (Oudewater) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joris (talk • contribs) 2013-04-02T16:21:52 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. moogsi (blah) 00:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Weil sie nur eine neuere Version sein soll einer vorhandenen. DNawrocki (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: User uploaded this photo over File:Międzychód - rynek DSC00649.JPG, which has been cleaned out. This is the "newer version" referred to. They have been warned warned against doing this --moogsi (blah) 01:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
nieaktualny Tomasz Matysiak (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: JuTa 05:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is with permission from manufactur. --87.238.42.7 07:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it. Geoff Who, me? 00:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Great doubts this picture is usable/ correctly uploaded (copyright Walt Disney/Pixar(?)) Sonty (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie poster. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Tschilp is a band, Fidel Bastro a label. Who is the creator of this image? тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, inappropriately yoinked image/copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
per Commons:FOP#Italy there is no freedom of panorama for modern buildings under Italian law; if it was first published here on Commons, that may count as first publishing it in the United States (meaning it could be kept) Rybec (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: DM SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
duplicate File:Lebron James (8292576621).jpg Dudek1337 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: exact duplicate. Please use {{Duplicate}}. –moogsi (blah) 05:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image of user. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
![12:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/02#c-Bill_william_compton-2013-04-02T12:46:00.000Z-File:"Mazhar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/02#c-INeverCry-2013-04-09T00:37:00.000Z-File:"Mazhar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image of uploader. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
)))423.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
)))423.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No educational value, out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
)))423.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
)))423.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio, and a photoshop to boot. http://www.autolatest.ro/upl/imgupl/news/2011/popup/cat-de-sigure-sunt-masinile-vechi-studiu-de-caz-siguranta-la-mercedes-w126-1979-1992-37707.jpg shows the original Mercedes photo, this is nothing more than a photoshopped version of that original. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication why it's in scope Jonund (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope, text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
User uploaded 19 other copyvios, claiming them as "own work". I can't find this one online, but the chances of it not being a copyvio seem slim to vanishing. In view of the user's past behaviour, the file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Rrburke (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: I'd be very surprised if this were own work --moogsi (blah) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly a screen capture. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible Flickr washing. Uploader has a long record of deleted uploads. The Flickr account contains a heterogenous mix of images. - 4ing (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image Simonxag (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Now used at w:selfie. It's an excellent example of the genre.--ragesoss (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Very well, :-) I withdraw my nomination. --Simonxag (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly a screen capture Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
User uploaded 19 other copyvios, claiming them as "own work". I can't find this one online, but the chances of it not being a copyvio seem slim to vanishing. In view of the user's past behaviour, the file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Rrburke (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: I'd be very surprised if this were own work --moogsi (blah) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
According to description, the picture is a derivative work. The original won't enter into the public domain until 2017 Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years, so this 2002 image is still not PD per Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. We have tons of better images from beaches. Jonund (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Useless file. Educationally negative (the embodyment of many chemical misconceptions). Out of COM:SCOPE. 99of9 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Spanish Division 2 as of Sep 2007. Scope? Not to mention {{Convert to wikitable}} and {{BadJPEG}} would also apply. moogsi (blah) 01:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded without any info or license, very unclear. Appears to be some sort of packet diagram? moogsi (blah) 02:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
File was originally uploaded with: Rendered version of Image:Dothan.svg because that refuses to thumbnail. The .svg version now has no problem with thumbnails, rendering this redundant. moogsi (blah) 03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a 2005 painting. No evidence for the givn CC-License. Atist needs to release it through COM:OTRS JuTa 11:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, just a test, and so on .. Frédéric (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded with no source, license, description, etc. Seemingly the same portrait (flipped, at a useful res) is on en.wiki as fair use: w:File:Costa Gomes (official).jpg. moogsi (blah) 15:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused image which can be easily replaced with Wikitable Sreejith K (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In the original upload page in vi.wiki, the uploader (same as Commons) claimed that this is non-free flag. Proof. Tân (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, see the real flag at http://www.fotw.us/flags/vn-as-m.html, we aleady have it here.--Antemister (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. According to the file name of the source: wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bogaz1.jpg, it is assumed to be taken from Wikipedia. See: larger file in visit2istanbul.com. But I couldn't find the same file of this in Wikipedia. So the file in Wikipedia mighte have been deleted. In this situation, there is no proof of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete
/wp-content/just indicates the blog runs on WordPress. There is no evidence of the license at source, and higher-res previously-published versions are available. All adds up to copyvio –moogsi (blah) 05:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Painting by Oliver Wendell "Tom" Schenk, died 1996. Sources I can find for this painting date it to 1972. moogsi (blah) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Logo for a seemingly nonexistent company/organization. Outside project scope. moogsi (blah) 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-free Windows 7 chrome visible, visual content of Mozilla websites are non-free. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. Yes I realize it is ironic that we are nominating the work of an anarchist for deletion, but legally he (or the group he represents) may still sue for copyright damages in court unless s/he agrees to waive those rights. Fortunately, we have OTRS should the rights holder agree to this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Freud died after 1925. This diagram, published 1923, is copyrighted in the US until 2019. moogsi (blah) 23:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The Flickreview tag was added falsely by the uploader. There is now no way to check the license on Flickr as the file is no longer hosted there. moogsi (blah) 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Too recent an image to host without knowing who the author was, when/whether it was published, etc. moogsi (blah) 23:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Simonxag (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not an ensign of any sort, it's just the lion and crown taken from File:Government Ensign of Belgium.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Keep No valid reason to delete. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Why was it uploaded? It's not an ensign, it's not a simplification of the lion on the real ensign, the name is completely false. I had every right to nominate it. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you have it. But I have every right (in fact I must do it) to ask you to read carefully this and argument your deletion request on the grounds of the 'Reasons for deletion' listed there. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 08:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Perfectly valid derivative image. If it requires a rename for a valid reason, then that's fine. – JBarta (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Now that it's renamed, I do not have a problem and I retract. I stand by my original nomination however and the reasoning for it. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - too small to be useful Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The name is copyrighted, not the lable nor the whole box. Thus, I think it may be published here. Best regards, --93.223.64.253 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unrecognisable, likely to be a non-notable person. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 14:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted logo. Kelly (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
not own work of uploader, but copied from http://16quotes.com/and-without-god-we-are-nothing/. While the text might be non-copyrightable, the background image surely is. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A possible copyvio. Site says last updated in September 2012 but am not sure about the copyright license. Rahul Bott (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly a scan of an official award. GrapedApe (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
artwork is too recent Eduardo.heuvel (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logos are usually copyrighted and cannot be used here. —Bill william comptonTalk 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Listed as own work here but as someone else's work at w:File:Pravara Kanya Vidya Mandir - Front View of Academic Premises.jpg. If it is indeed someone else's work, then it needs OTRS permission. Stefan4 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, likely copyvio too. Jespinos (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, seems unlikely to be own work --moogsi (blah) 23:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Clearly a screen capture Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and Protect please. Per nom and also generic, bad name. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, ~ Nahid Talk 04:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
out of scope, promotional portrait Rybec (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Company logo not likely to be owned by the uploader. Same image has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as fair use. Eeekster (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Advertising/ Promotion Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
See COM:SIG#United Kingdom. The signatory has not yet been dead for 70 years. It might be a crown copyright, but the signatory was born less than 50 years ago, so the signature can't have been published more than 50 years ago anyway. Stefan4 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years, so this 1974 stamp (http://mybeststamps.blogspot.fr/2009/03/india-commemoratives-stamps-1974.html) is still not PD. Ww2censor (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sadly Delete --Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It can read non-free writing. No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
User's own artwork, outside project scope. moogsi (blah) 07:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover —Andrei S. Talk 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation of http://www.wappenbuch.com/E298.htm Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of the Netherlands
[edit]Sorry, but these coins were still protected by copyright in the Netherlands on 1 January 1996, so the copyright protection in the United States lasts for 95 years since publication due to the annoying URAA rule. All Commons files have to be freely licensed in the United States.
- File:10 cent 1937 achter 300.JPG
- File:10 cent 1937 voor 300.JPG
- File:5 cent 1941(zink) achter 300.JPG
- File:5 cent 1941(zink) voor 300.JPG
- File:Nederlanden 1940 Halve Cent Obv.jpg
- File:Nederlanden 1940 Halve Cent Rev.jpg
- File:NETHERLANDS, WILHELMINA 1938 ---2 1,2 GUILDERS b.jpg
- File:NETHERLANDS, WILHELMINA, 1938 ---2 1,2 GUILDERS a .jpg
_achter_300.JPG){kind=link}
_voor_300.JPG){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Additionally, the photographs themselves are probably eligible for separate copyright. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet and en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins for more information. --Rrburke (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Not transferred to Wikilivres Canada. Although the currency designs themselves are PD in Canada, the photographs (which were apparently not taken by the uploader?) are probably not. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angel Perez Garcia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Look like scans of newspaper pages. The shown images likely are not as old as for being in the public domain.
Jespinos (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files available online, unlikely claim of own work.
- File:Icd.JPG
- File:Perentak2.JPG
- File:Tunggal.JPG - e.g.
- File:Responsif.JPG - e.g.
- File:Perentak1.gif
- File:Large pacemaker.jpg
- File:Dwi.JPG - e.g.
moogsi (blah) 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coolkamlesh123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]We aren't Facebook. Out of scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder, thus copyright holder's permission is required to publish the image on Commons under a suitable license.
—Bill william comptonTalk 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farook Iglesias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Apple is my favorite Brand.jpg
- File:Enrique Iglesias My Favorite Singer.jpg
- File:Farook Iglesias (EI).jpg
- File:Farook Iglesias.jpg
- File:Farook Iglesias Mar 3013.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
7 photos taken with 7 different cameras, not own work, and a product / promo image for a tyre.
- File:GitiCompete Desert-1 at 2012 China "Dakkar" Championship.jpg
- File:ChongQing Straddle-beam monorail.jpg
- File:One of Giti's European Technical support team visiting fleet operator.jpg
- File:GitiControl280.jpg
- File:One of Giti's manufacturing facilities in Anhui, China.jpg
- File:Giti's Executive Chairman Dr. Enki Tan giving his keynote at 2012 ITEC.jpg
- File:Giti R&D centre in China.jpg
- File:Giti-proving-ground.jpg
moogsi (blah) 17:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo materials. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Tm-art fine arts.JPG
- File:Maes At Belgium art fair.JPG
- File:Art monaco 2013 Maes an Monet.jpg
- File:Thomas Maes at the international art fair Belgium.jpg
- File:2014 PROJECTS of Maes Thomas,.jpg
- File:Radio spoth light sculpture by TM maes.JPG
- File:Maes At Rome, Italy.jpg
- File:Flower lamp sculptures and design by Thomas Maes.jpg
- File:Flowers of memories.jpg
- File:Contemporary Masters.jpg
- File:Maes at Milan, Italy.jpg
- File:Maes at ny.jpg
- File:Art Monaco and Maes.jpg
- File:Auction Art Monaco 201.jpg
- File:Thomas Maes At art Monaco 2013.jpg
- File:Art Monaco 2013 and Maes.jpg
- File:Maes In art Book International Contemporary sculptors.jpg
- File:Thomas Maes and art books.jpg
- File:Tm-art Maes and Monet at Art Monaco.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MarkoDejic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Peter S. N Ayanga (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not uploader's own work (see sources on some, or perform google/tineye search on any). Text on most is probably eligible for copyright (indeed, short poems are eligible) - otherwise of questionable usefulness (COM:SCOPE)
- File:Wronged u.jpg
- File:What is love.jpg
- File:Tears..jpg
- File:Tel show prov.jpg
- File:Stress Free.jpg
- File:One day.jpg
- File:My attitude MATTERS.jpg
- File:Luv Fellings.jpg
- File:Love me.jpg
- File:Like it.jpg
- File:If I Has.jpg
- File:End..jpg
- File:Clothes you put on.jpg
- File:Dear lod.jpg
- File:Be uaself.jpg
- File:Love who you want.jpg
- File:Love or dont love me.jpg
- File:Take every chance.jpg
- File:If another.jpg
- File:Never cry.jpg
- File:Value-and-appreciate-quote-quotes.jpg
- File:Cheating-quote-quotes.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The text some/most of the images is traceable to some of the other website, for example, compare File:Clothes you put on.jpg and http://99likes.com/193/we-all-love-to-spend-lots-of-money-on-buying-clothes-but-ne, File:Love_me.jpg and http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Love_me_without_restriction,_trust_me_without_fear,_want_me_without_demand,_accept_me_for_who_I_am./288893/. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
Unused personal pictures, various inspirational quotes, and other files outside project scope.
- File:Personality.jpg
- File:Prefects.jpg
- File:Pioneer class of 2008 with director.jpg
- File:Mixture of photos 130.jpg
- File:Mapal data.png - .png version of File:Caucasus-ethnic_pl.svg
- File:P.two, my own work.jpg
- File:Henry Peters.jpg
- File:Ninah.jpg
- File:P.ttwo.jpg
- File:LIZ OKUMU.jpg
- File:Velma.jpg
- File:P....2.jpg
- File:Mum, Velma and Henry.jpg
- File:P.two.jpg
- File:P. two.jpg
- File:Henrrryyyy 2.jpg
moogsi (blah) 14:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Here again, compare File:Personality.jpg and http://shareinspirequotes.blogspot.in/2013/02/no-amount-of-makeup-can-cover-up-ugly.html (direct copyvio image from blogspot image), etc. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contributions.
- File:Bio-costantino.pdf
- File:Bio-bianchi.pdf
- File:Bio-giordano.pdf
- File:Bio-bedel.pdf
- File:Bio-brodsky.pdf
- File:Bio-sacco.pdf
- File:Bio-dipascuale.pdf
- File:Bio-res.pdf
- File:Bio-ananke.pdf
- File:Bio-zuviria.pdf
- File:Bio-valansi.pdf
- File:Bio-galban.pdf
Jespinos (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S.ghafourian (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Curtis Richardson Picture 2.JPG
- File:Mike Jackson Picture.jpg
- File:Charlie Vox Picture.jpg
- File:Curtis Richardson Picture 1.JPG
- File:A-Lee Live 2013.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shobhit Gosain (talk · contribs)
[edit]User's own artwork / self-promotional images. Outside project scope.
moogsi (blah) 06:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vijaypnair1963 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs with filters applied. No indication why these are in scope.
moogsi (blah) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by XSmith262x (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Maxfrench.png
- File:Riffraff 0.jpg
- File:600x600.jpg
- File:Tumblr lw7pgyoi951qk4o4wo1 500.jpg
- File:Byrdgang.jpg
- File:Tumblr lsvkunIqvq1qhy1fwo1 500.jpg
- File:Max B Wavy.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ZicaLatina (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of them are recognisable. Unremarkable people, out of project scope.
—Bill william comptonTalk 15:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Токарева Анна (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Сигле Солженицын.jpg
- File:Сигле Сокуров.jpg
- File:Сигле Матвиенко.jpg
- File:Сигле Вишневская.jpg
- File:Сигле Селин.jpg
- File:Sigle.jpg found at http://ololo.fm/artist/photos/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9+%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B5
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ליאור251203 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images of uploader. No educational value, out of project scope.
- File:דודות.JPG
- File:סבתא רבא.JPG
- File:סבא רבא.JPG
- File:אחיין.JPG
- File:אני.JPG
- File:דודה.JPG
- File:סבתא.JPG
- File:אמא.JPG
—Bill william comptonTalk 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
author changed license, no longer under cc-by-sa Eduardo.heuvel (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
author changed license, no longer under cc-by-sa Eduardo.heuvel (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
author changed license, no longer under cc-by-sa Eduardo.heuvel (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. 99.118.34.43 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. 99.118.34.43 08:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Also please check uploader's other contributions, as they all appear to be copyright violations. --99.118.34.43 08:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Das Foto eignet sich nicht so gut für Wikipedia. DNawrocki (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete cv Penyulap ☏ 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If this is "photo of myself" then it is definitely not "own work". Sinnamon (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- probably is a photo of themselves, but they own the copyright as an heir rather than the photographer themselves. Penyulap ☏ 14:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"A photo of me" != "own work" Sinnamon (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.ffacv.es/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45%3Alos-firebats-de-valencia-se-alzan-con-el-2o-bowl-de-la-nucia-de-football-flag&catid=4%3Aflag-open&Itemid=13&lang=es
Converted to DR by me, as uploader posted on my talkpage, to allow for discussion whether the logo is indeed above COM:TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-CzechGov}} not suitable for such artistic work. 194.79.55.130 11:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt the validity of the license on Wikimedia Commons. License only says: Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos del Portal, siempre que se cite expresamente su origen. It does not specify anything about commercial use. Community opinion? Alan Lorenzo (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No OTRS. Seems to be a press photography agency pic. I let a message to the uploader, wait and see. Zeugma fr (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
is this file eligible of copyright protection? If so, it doesn't look like "own work", the source is in the watermark. Vera (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dr. Michaela Neubert does not agree with this photograph. Furthermore there is no formal licence by Hans Peter Hümmer available as yet. It´s my fault.--Mehlauge (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Delete< |reason=wrong filename its danish not norwegean. new file is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plakat_zur_Mitgliederwerbung_der_d%C3%A4nischen_Waffen-SS.jpg |subpage=File:Plakat zur Mitgliederwerbung der norwegischen Waffen-SS 2.jpg |day=1 |month=April |year=2013 }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk • contribs) 2013-04-01T20:03:29 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- На сайте ЕСТЬ разрешение на любое использование Derehosrescalo (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Использование не включает создание производных работ. Коммерческое использование должно оговариваться отдельно.— Redboston 06:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is a permission to use commercially, but there's no permission to alter or to redistribute altered version. Delete Sinnamon (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Известно, что:
- Все материалы официального сайта Государственной Думы Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник. Никакого предварительного согласия на перепечатку со стороны Аппарата Государственной Думы не требуется. (http://www.duma.gov.ru/about-site/copyrights/).
- То есть, для Википедии вроде б подходит. Подскажите как это оформить. С уважением, --Brattarb (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- См. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ищенко Евгений Петрович II.jpg, для Википедии не подходит. Оформить - через отправление запроса в госдуру.— Redboston 22:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Recognisable people have not given their consent - photo was taken in a school in Kiribati and people in the photo may have had an expectation of privacy. One of the men in the photo is now deceased which I did not know when I uploaded it. (I am the uploader) Obkiribati1 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Same picture is used on other social networks as the profile pictures of the person depicted [1][2][3]. Although this picture is of bigger size, it is potentially a copyvio. Wcam (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.169.81 18:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Frame itself is likely copyright-vio-ed Sinnamon (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I notified the user on hi-wiki. If it is a copyvio then we should just crop the photo to solve the problem. --MGA73 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a deletionist, I would completely agree that only that which is copyvio needs to be deleted, not not a byte more. Sinnamon (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Question – How does it violate copyright laws? Are you suggesting that the frame meets threshold of originality?—Bill william comptonTalk 12:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that an image of a flower is not a basic geometric shape. Sinnamon (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: With first revision masked to avoid copyright problem PierreSelim (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This image was posted on a copyrighted website at least five years before Shymaa Rabea claimed it as his own work and posted it to WM Commons.
Photo in 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011164132/http://jepsculpture.com/bronze.shtml
Photo today: http://www.jepsculpture.com/bronze.shtml PRRfan (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the image as posted to Commons retains even the filename used on the jepsculpture.com site. PRRfan (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Previously published elsewhere, apparently not own work. –moogsi (blah) 05:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
IS NOT THE CORRECT INFORM 2.136.184.2 05:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you the uploader? Then, please log-in and repeat. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: text-only contribution (draft of a wiki article?) –moogsi (blah) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per moogsi PierreSelim (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Porque esta versión del escudo de Antequera ya no está actualizada, se ha creado otra nueva. AytoAntequera (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Image is according to the current official description. LMLM (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: even if this version isn't current, that's no reason to delete it –moogsi (blah) 05:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion PierreSelim (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
НА сайте нет разрешения на создание производных работ, на коммерческое использование. — Redboston 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete nomination: The site has no permission to create derivative works for commercial use.
- Looking at http://www.duma.gov.ru/about-site/copyrights/ (Russian), the only permission given for the content of the site is entirely free redistribution. Nothing else is explicitly permitted –moogsi (blah) 05:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not enought permissions to be compatible with COM:L PierreSelim (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, outside project scope. moogsi (blah) 06:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The file is used by fi.wikipedia.org. Ptmattson 13:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC+3)
- Delete copied from page http://www.music-juventus.fr/laureats/galerie-photos.php?laureat=103 Motopark (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Photo taken by myself and used by Juventus website with my permission. Affirmation of copyright sent to Wikimedia. Ptmattson 15:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC+3)
- Comment: sorry, the file hadn't been used for a week when when I nominated it, it just looked like a sideways picture of no-one in particular. Did you send the permission to OTRS? --moogsi (blah) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please contact COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Since this is the photo of the uploader, that means that somebody else took this particular shot. Sinnamon (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It could have been taken by the uploader, using a timer or whatever, but I'd suggest it should be deleted on privacy grounds - Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Danrok (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
out of use, superseded Cycn (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per this one. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete ineligible for protection in US or NL, no reason to keep for licensing reasons. Additionally very ugly aliasing –moogsi (blah) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per moogsi FASTILY 08:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
out of use, superseded Cycn (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fileformat is not a reason for deletion, neither is non-use. Usage might be outside Wikimedia. Akoopal (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- And forgot to mention, the svg is based on the png, so the orginal should stay for license reasons. Akoopal (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Akoopal. Multichill (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the svg is a derivative –moogsi (blah) 05:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this book cover is really public domain. It is British, and so even if it doesn't pass a threshold of originality test in the US (a point which I do not concede), Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom says that the UK's threshold is extremely low. The stamp depicted on the cover is unquestionably public domain. It can be found at [4] and we can/should upload a copy of it here. But I have serious doubt that we can claim this book cover as public domain and even if we could in the US (again, a point which I do not concede), I doubt we could in the UK and Commons requires both. UserB (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is no original content in the cover apart from the stamp image. I added PD Old in that respect. There is nothing here copyrightable in the UK or US as far as I can see. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of unoriginal things put together make something original. In the UK, it's a pretty low threshold. I see no reason whatsoever to keep this dubiously free book cover when what the article really is about is the unquestionably free stamp design and we can get a much higher resolution unquestionably free version of that very easily. --UserB (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- As for the PD-OLD tag, he died in 1954[5]. 70 years from 1954 will be 2024, so PD-old definitely does not apply. And even if it did, it has nothing to do with the issue - the only question that matters is whether this book cover is sufficiently creative to pass the threshold of originality under UNITED KINGDOM (not USA) law. --UserB (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:CRT#Typographical copyright, we may have to wait until the book is at least 25 years old. Also, it contains an oval shape which might be as "original" as the letter modification in the Edge logo. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Test case: in the opinion of me (and many others), Windows 7's UI is sufficiently original for copyright protection. Due to Firefox's use of its thematic elements, it is also not de minimis because it is treated as a prominent aspect. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I do not share this opinion. The only part of Windows Vista being visible is the blue gradient surrounding box. Clearly DM and possibly even not copyrightable. The only copyrightable picture is the yellow warn sign and this comes with the firefox install. ( chrome://global/skin/icons/sslWarning.png ) --McZusatz (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is clearly intended to illustrate the SSL warning when Firefox is directed to https://cacert.org/; showing how Firefox looks on Microsoft Windows is incidental. If these window decorations are copyrightable, I think they would fall under "copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)" on the COM:DM page. Rybec (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licnses cannot be correct. The author of a 1985 made foto canot be more than 70 years dead. JuTa 18:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the remark, I haven't really understood how to specify the right license. A correction has been made that I hope it's correct. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licnses cannot be correct. The author of a 1983 made foto canot be deadmore than 70 years. JuTa 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the remark, I had not really understood how to specify the right license. A correction has been made that I hope it's correct. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licnses cannot be correct. The author of a 1978 made foto cannot be deadmore than 70 years. JuTa 18:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the remark, I had not really understood how to specify the right license. A correction has been made that I hope it's correct. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tierradenadie1971, did you take this photograph in 1978? Rybec (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licenses cannot be correct. The author of a 1979 made foto cannot be deadmore than 70 years. JuTa 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the remark, I had not really understood how to specify the right license. A correction has been made that I hope it's correct. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licenses cannot be correct. The author of a 1983 made foto cannot be dead more than 70 years. JuTa 18:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Correction made. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the given licenses cannot be correct. The author of a 1982 made foto cannot be dead more than 70 years. JuTa 18:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the remark, I had not really understood how to specify the right license. A correction has been made that I hope it's correct. --Tierradenadie1971 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Logotipo Nike.jpg, quite obviously not the own work of the author. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: lazy upload of a near-duplicate –moogsi (blah) 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Artworks by Joël Ducorroy
[edit]- File:Tableau acheté aux enchères - Ducorroy.jpg
- File:Sapin de Noel - Ducorroy.jpg
- File:Allez vous faire cuire... - Ducorroy.jpg
- File:Polaroid SX 70 - Ducorroy.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:Pitor2. Joël Ducorroy is born in 1955. Copyright violation. --82.124.47.221 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom or ask for OTRS if the artist uploaded these himself Rybec (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The given CC-License is wrong because its not the work of the uploader. Is this {{PD-old}} or similar? JuTa 10:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Dit is een van de oude ansichtkaarten die in de Taisho-periode of de vroege Showa-periode (maar niet later dan 1945) werden gepubliceerd door de Japanse drukkerij Tonboya. Dit komt omdat sommige van de ansichtkaarten van Tonboya hebben het merk van een kleine libel[1][2][3] (andere voorbeelden: x, y). Dus de beschrijving van het bestand moet als volgt worden gecorrigeerd:
Beschrijving Kabuki-za Bron Gescand doorwww.kinouya.comAuteur トンボヤ 〔Tonboya〕 Datum between circa 1910 and circa 1930 Licentie {{PD-Japan-organization}}{{PD-US-1996}}
- ↑ “裏面にトンボのマークが入っているの（中略）とか、いろいろある。” (100年前の横浜・神奈川 (2))
- ↑ “発行元: トンボヤ” (1900年代の東京•吉原の大門)
- ↑ Yoshiwara at Tokyo, zie ook deze kant ("Printed by TONBOYA").
Kept: per トトト, thank you. –moogsi (blah) 05:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Неверная лицензия. В описании файла (wikireality ru/wiki/Файл:Wiki_logo.png) указано: "© Правление Викиреальности". Согласно же правилам самой Викиреальности (wikireality ru/wiki/Викиреальность:Конституция#3.5..C2.A0.D0.9B.D0.B8.D1.86.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B7.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5 3.5.): "Изображения, размещаемые на сервере «pics.wikireality.ru», для которых не определена лицензия на странице файла в пространстве имён «Файл» внутри проекта, считаются размещёнными на условиях добросовестного использования в образовательных некоммерческих целях. Участники проекта, загружающие собственные работы, могут размещать их под любой лицензией, позволяющей использование файла в проекте". Таким образом, настоящей лицензией файла являяется либо "all rights reserved", либо fair use. — Redboston 16:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Файл fair use, но тут действительно не понятно, можно конечно спросить у них самих Амшель (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Wikireality does indeed claim copyright on the logo. However, the reflection is not enough to attach copyright to these very simple shapes.. –moogsi (blah) 06:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
PR of the site. 83.149.48.136 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Kept: Not a valid deletion rationale, already kept once before. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Suspicious free images from Bollywood Hungama
[edit]Bollywood Hungama, the source of these files, is a website dedicated to Bollywood in general and other Indian film related activities. They have released some images under free licenses; refer Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. But the subject two three images are of American actors shot at the Academy Awards function. It is possible for the website people to fly to LA and click these pics or they can upload it from any other source that has given these pics under the same license. But i am still suspicious about that. Should we trust this website in this case?
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment:These pictures belong to site Bollywood Hungama, Under the Ticket (ticket #2008030310010794). There are many images like her in this category. And we see that there is no need to delete. That deleted these images should be delete all the images in this category. Because they are all from the same Web site. We also see the same images approved by the Administrator. I see no reason to delete these pictures. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 13:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out to another such image. Have enlisted it as well.
The site hosting these images in "parties and events" category doesn't actually confirm that they own these images. The OTRS email releases copyrights on images which have been created by their photographers. The site also has film posters, screenshots of films and other promotional photos, the copyrights of which are not owned by the site and hence cannot be released by them. Also, i have come across many times with examples where party and event photographs have actually been uploaded in movie-still category by the website. So blindly following this-category-is-safe is wrong. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out to another such image. Have enlisted it as well.
- Delete I have my doubts, too. These images are not the usual photos from Indian parties, but look like downsampled images from other sources. A Greek website uploaded a version of Lawrence with more detail at http://www.mylady.gr/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/68047/1.jpg and a German magazine has this wider crop of the Bale image at http://image.gala.de/v1/cms/Xu/oscar-christian-bale-wi_4820236-landscape-standardLandscapeTeaser_4.jpg?v=6894937
- I assume these images are from photo agencies and that we can't trust Bollywood Hungama here. Hekerui (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
For the reasons stated in the previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama.
- File:AmyAdams.jpg
- File:GwynethPaltrow01.jpg
- File:MilaKunis.jpg
- File:Andrew Garfield 2011.jpg
- File:Reese Witherspoon 2, 2011.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have just read why same images uploaded earlier are deleted. I strongly object. If u doubt integrity of bollywood hungama then why not doubt copyright status of every image in events section of bollywood hungama? Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan were invited at Oscars 2011 and bollywood hungama being leading website about bollywood news, its photographer travelled with them and took these shots. U have problem if bollywood hungama take pics of hollywood stars while present in hollywood? Neo. (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Read what Hekerui said. There are examples there of why this isnt trustworthy. I found more. File:AmyAdams.jpg's uncropped full version is copyrighted by Richard Harbaugh/©A.M.P.A.S. over here. Similar with Paltrow over here and Kunis over here. I made a mistake in opening this DR instead of directly going for speedy deletion requests. But one good thing is that it at least got documented now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Any website can pick up images from bollywood hungama and claim copyrights. If my websites based in African countries copy images from bollywood hungama and claim copyrights, will you start nominating images for deletion? If not, why?
- Bollywood hungama reporter Devansh Patel had travelled to cover Oscars 2011. His report is here. His twitter id is this. These are https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40Pateldevansh+oscar&s=typd&x=17&y=15 some of his tweets to confirm that he covers hollywood also. If admins delete images on basis of guesswork and suspicion then it means there is simply no rule of law on Commons. Neo. (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose you have failed to notice that the examples i have give are uncropped images whereas BH's images are cropped versions. The one who has uploaded full images is likely to be the owner/copyright holder. And yes... we have no rule of law. We strive to protect the rightful copyright holder and also the likely possible copyright holder. We are not a court of law. In case BH thinks they own the images, they may sue the false copyright claimants.
Also, its not absolutely necessary to be at a certain place to write about it. And the Indian copyrights laws are not at all strict. Copyvios by topmost publishing houses is not uncommon in India. So if some Patel is actually copying images of others and posting on his name, i wouldn't be shocked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose you have failed to notice that the examples i have give are uncropped images whereas BH's images are cropped versions. The one who has uploaded full images is likely to be the owner/copyright holder. And yes... we have no rule of law. We strive to protect the rightful copyright holder and also the likely possible copyright holder. We are not a court of law. In case BH thinks they own the images, they may sue the false copyright claimants.
The EXIF of other bollywoodhungama photos from the 83rd Annual Academy Awards 2011 [6] confirms that this photos are from A.M.P.A.S.. The pictures all have no bollywoodhungama watermark. So the license not applies, simple case. This also applies to the other 83rd Academy Awards photos:
- File:Andrew Garfield 2011.jpg which is cropped from this photo
- File:Reese Witherspoon 2, 2011.jpg, AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, photo ID 110227078067
--Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out to two more such images. Have added them too in DR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: All pictures nominated are cropped from other copyrighted source. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yann (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
None of these Bollywood Hungama images were taken at Bollywood events or parties. We have TV shows, fashion week, jewelry week, book launches, and images of celebrities just out and about. In order to qualify for the OTRS release the image has to have been taken at a Bollywood party or event. These do not qualify.
- File:Bir Radha Sherpa.jpg
- File:Jacqueline Aditya walk for Manish at LFW 2017.jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin at the 2017 Lakme Fashion Week.jpg
- File:Kangana Ranaut at Mr India Finale.jpg
- File:Kangana-Ranaut-Dec 2017.jpg
- File:Kangna-Ranaut-Dec 2017.jpg
- File:Karanvir and Teejay with their daughters.jpg
- File:Katrina Kaif at Lux Golden Rose Awards 2017.jpg
- File:Padmini Kolhapure at Celebrating Vivaha 2017.jpg
- File:Shama Sikander in Mumbai 01.jpg
- File:Shama Sikander in Mumbai 02.jpg
- File:Shamita Shetty at India International Jewellery Week.jpg
- File:Sonam-Kapoor-attends-Condé-Nast-Traveller-India-event.jpg
- File:Sunny Leone at Lakme Fashion Week 2017.jpg
- File:Swara Bhaskar at GQ Best Dressed Awards 2017.jpg
Majora (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This comes up every now and then. The permission is for all pictures by Hungama photographers, not only for events organised by Hungama. We have interpreted that in a broad sense: all images from Hungama quality, unless there is evidence to the contrary (events outside India, film stills, specific copyright claim, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Who is "we", Yann. Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary that whatever agreement these "we" had was never disseminated to the masses and if it exists it has been routinely ignored. Was this OTRS agents? Was this Commons users? Was it admins? Not only does the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, explicitly say otherwise, but so does precedent. I just had other Bollywood Hungama images deleted under this same rationale last week. So have many other image reviewers. You really need to link to this discussion and perhaps ensure that more people know about it. As for "events outside India" that covers some of these images but not all. --Majora (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- We means the Commons community. I know the template is ambiguous, but so is the permission. You are free to propose an improvement. My comment is only general regarding your rationale for deleting these files. I didn't look at the files themselves. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to dig up the discussion, Yann? It seems highly unorthodox for the community at large to decide something based on a ticket most of them cannot see. I just want to make sure what actually was said before I go about redoing the template. Yes, the ticket is ambiguous, but wouldn't that be cause for airing on the side of more caution (more strict interpretation)? I'll change what I'm doing to whatever the community wants me to do but I need to know what exactly that is. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please see Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama and its talk page, as well as Commons:Deletion requests/All files in Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama. There were also numerous DRs and discussions on COM:OTRS/Noticeboard. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Really? Obviously I've already looked at the template and its talk page. It clearly says it must be a "Bollywood party or event". The template talk page says nothing whatsoever about "all" images from Bollywood Hungama are acceptable. In fact, it says quite the opposite. So that was incredibly unhelpful to tell me to go read that. I'm also aware of the numerous DRs. Many of which use this same exact reasoning and were deleted. Again, wholly unhelpful as is linking to the main OTRS noticeboard. The only actual thread that you linked to does not change a darn thing. It was withdrawn with another link to the OTRS noticeboard from 2012 that explains, once again, nothing. So all in all, you never actually answered my question but instead gave me a bunch of useless links that change nothing. I can't, and won't, change the way I review images and how I interpret the license and the OTRS ticket unless you can actually give me a link that says I should be doing otherwise. Which you have not. I still believe that these images do not fall under the OTRS release that was given to us and will remain there until you can actually give me a link that tells me otherwise and not conflicting DRs and useless RfCs. --Majora (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please see Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama and its talk page, as well as Commons:Deletion requests/All files in Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama. There were also numerous DRs and discussions on COM:OTRS/Noticeboard. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to dig up the discussion, Yann? It seems highly unorthodox for the community at large to decide something based on a ticket most of them cannot see. I just want to make sure what actually was said before I go about redoing the template. Yes, the ticket is ambiguous, but wouldn't that be cause for airing on the side of more caution (more strict interpretation)? I'll change what I'm doing to whatever the community wants me to do but I need to know what exactly that is. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- We means the Commons community. I know the template is ambiguous, but so is the permission. You are free to propose an improvement. My comment is only general regarding your rationale for deleting these files. I didn't look at the files themselves. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Who is "we", Yann. Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary that whatever agreement these "we" had was never disseminated to the masses and if it exists it has been routinely ignored. Was this OTRS agents? Was this Commons users? Was it admins? Not only does the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, explicitly say otherwise, but so does precedent. I just had other Bollywood Hungama images deleted under this same rationale last week. So have many other image reviewers. You really need to link to this discussion and perhaps ensure that more people know about it. As for "events outside India" that covers some of these images but not all. --Majora (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to add more, but my connection went off, and I am also busy IRL. The template says Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Emphasis is mine. And you have to understand who they are, and how they work. Hungama is a paparazzi company which hire photographers to make photographs of Bollywood people, and sell high resolution copies. Giving away small copies with a watermark is a benefit, not a service for them. It is free advertising. So Hungama grants a free license for these small copies made by their photographers, who only work in India. They can only license images of which they own the copyright, that's why screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites, and pictures from outside India are excluded. Everything else is included. As I said, we already have had this discussion several times. I hope it is clear enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- In yet, you continue to miss actually linking me to this discussion that you claim you have had several times. I will not put my own ideas into the permission and I certainly won't make it more permissible than what the template clearly says without an actual link that proves otherwise. It being free advertising is completely and totally irrelevant. Especially considering most of the watermarks are cropped out of the photos by uploaders making your entire point moot. Why do you continue to fail to prove your point? All I'm asking for is a link, which if there has been several discussions, should be relatively easy to find. It is on you to prove your point. I'm not going to go hunting for it and I'm not going to change the way I interpret the license when there have been numerous DRs that have resulted in deletion with the same rationale. So obviously it has been acceptable before. I've also read the ticket and the ambiguity should result in a more strict interpretation. Not a "well it is ambiguous so everything is acceptable!" That isn't how Commons, as I know it, works. Ambiguity always falls on the side of caution. We have an entire policy that revolves around that for a reason. This DR is a reflection of that and a reflection of both the template and how the OTRS ticket is actually written. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I provided all the explanations everybody else has. I can't do anything if you fail to understand the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your failure to adequately back up your point of view is noted. It isn't my understanding that is faulty. --Majora (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I provided all the explanations everybody else has. I can't do anything if you fail to understand the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- In yet, you continue to miss actually linking me to this discussion that you claim you have had several times. I will not put my own ideas into the permission and I certainly won't make it more permissible than what the template clearly says without an actual link that proves otherwise. It being free advertising is completely and totally irrelevant. Especially considering most of the watermarks are cropped out of the photos by uploaders making your entire point moot. Why do you continue to fail to prove your point? All I'm asking for is a link, which if there has been several discussions, should be relatively easy to find. It is on you to prove your point. I'm not going to go hunting for it and I'm not going to change the way I interpret the license when there have been numerous DRs that have resulted in deletion with the same rationale. So obviously it has been acceptable before. I've also read the ticket and the ambiguity should result in a more strict interpretation. Not a "well it is ambiguous so everything is acceptable!" That isn't how Commons, as I know it, works. Ambiguity always falls on the side of caution. We have an entire policy that revolves around that for a reason. This DR is a reflection of that and a reflection of both the template and how the OTRS ticket is actually written. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to add more, but my connection went off, and I am also busy IRL. The template says Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Emphasis is mine. And you have to understand who they are, and how they work. Hungama is a paparazzi company which hire photographers to make photographs of Bollywood people, and sell high resolution copies. Giving away small copies with a watermark is a benefit, not a service for them. It is free advertising. So Hungama grants a free license for these small copies made by their photographers, who only work in India. They can only license images of which they own the copyright, that's why screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites, and pictures from outside India are excluded. Everything else is included. As I said, we already have had this discussion several times. I hope it is clear enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I reviewed these pictures, which were made by Hungama photographers in India, so the permission is valid. Again Hungama doesn't organise events. It sends its photographers to events organised by others, where Bollywood people are present. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. These pictures were made by Hungama photographers in India, so the permission is valid. --Yann (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I have some doubt about these files: no watermark, link only to BH main page, different naming convention, and these are not Bollywood actresses, but fashion models. May be OK, but I would like a second opinion.
- File:Leading models at Avon’s fashion show (60831785).jpg
- File:Leading models at Avon’s fashion show (60831786).jpg
- File:Leading models at Avon’s fashion show (60831789).jpg
- File:Leading models at Avon’s fashion show (60831790).jpg
- File:Leading models at Avon’s fashion show (60831791).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}
Yann (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Yann:
Fixed links. Please check. ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 04:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Moheen: Do you have any idea why they do not have a watermark? Regards, Yann (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Yann: Those files are posted two years ago, maybe that time they didn't use the watermark. Most of the files look like that. But the licenses is ok, IMO. ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 07:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Moheen: Do you have any idea why they do not have a watermark? Regards, Yann (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Not taken by BH photographer, these are promotional posters released by the production house or cast.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
CptViraj (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @CptViraj: I'm not doubting your decision. But are you sure. I think one or more image don't qualify for deletion. And BH files template display it accepts files from on the set. So I upload few files on the set of Nikamma. Does BH not allow files on the set. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @C1K98V: They are allowed but it also says "taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer". These files were published by production house and/or cast on their social media. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @CptViraj: , how to find out that taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. Guide me in this. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- There are instructions at Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @CptViraj: , how to find out that taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. Guide me in this. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @C1K98V: They are allowed but it also says "taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer". These files were published by production house and/or cast on their social media. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Most of them are available on the Internet. Also, uploader is not the copyright holder, thus copyright holder's permission is required to publish the image on Commons under a suitable license.
- File:Punk TV - Space Shadows PROMO.jpg
- File:А1к.jpg
- File:Alex-Punk TV.jpg
- File:Hot Zex - Vera club.JPG
- File:Hot Zex 2.jpg
- File:Hot Zex - Standby cover.jpg
- File:Hot Zex - Riga.jpg
- File:Vladimir Andreyevich Komarov.jpg
—Bill william comptonTalk 15:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bill. I appreciate your warring about copyright control of this images. Let me assure you that I am a copyright holder and the only one owner of this images. And I give them public domain status. Some of them you may find on Internet, but with the lower resolution. I would kindly ask you to keep this files and not delete them, as I believe they represent story very well. Thank You in advance. Echo222
- Are you Vladimir Komarov? Who are Konstantin Nikonov and Oxana Lavrentyeva? Did they take the pictures?—Bill william comptonTalk 04:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The building appears to be from 2003. Korean law doesn't permit photos of recent buildings. See for example http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/01/15/2009011500040.html Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep屋外美術物には該当しない。--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Korea FASTILY 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
