Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/04/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![13 File:I'm age 44, about 5`10" ,245 pounds 2013-04-08 18-01.jpg](#File:I'm_age_44,_about_5`10"_,245_pounds_2013-04-08_18-01.jpg){kind=link}
![56 File:14 year old kid trying to make it as a rapper---has a rap group called "S-O-N" abbreviated as Sativa Over Indica 2013-04-08 23-48.jpg](#File:14_year_old_kid_trying_to_make_it_as_a_rapper---has_a_rap_group_called_"S-O-N"_abbreviated_as_Sativa_Over_Indica_2013-04-08_23-48.jpg){kind=link}
![60 File:A Asian version of "Jener".jpeg](#File:A_Asian_version_of_"Jener".jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Source from a 2010 post. Hardly like to be an own work as claimed by a new uploader. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/tight-just-aint-right/story-e6freomx-1226024660411 Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
See the copyright tag at the bottom right. Image available widely on the internet from much earlier dates. Rahul Bott (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Vanilla copyvio (I was just going to tag it) so closed as speedy and deleted Herby talk thyme 10:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
See TinEye... It can hardly be "own work". Stegop (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
File is not uploader's own work as specified in license. Appears to be an AP/MLB.com photo: http://www.mlive.com/sports/flint/index.ssf/2010/06/dear_bud_selig_give_armando_ga.html X96lee15 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: copyvio Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This image appears to be a slightly cropped version of an image that appears elsewhere. The more astute reader will note that the part cropped out is the part where the site name was watermarked on the image.
Another image from the same uploader, File:Penetración Vaginal.JPG is also a copyright violation (see here). Would the closing admin please delete all of this user's uploads and block them to prevent a repeat? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete both files as copyright violation. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)- Delete, appears to be form of copyvio. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom (speedy delete for copyright violation) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 08:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The image is of little educational value. Plus, the programme/DVD running on the TV screen makes it to be a cpvio. We can certainly afford to have other images serving same purpose. Uploader was simply upto some mischief with misleading title and adding this image to English monarchs family tree article on en.wiki. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal vanity photo, out of scope. P199 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of 150px Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-Ecemaml-2013-04-09T06:32:00.000Z-File:I'm_age_44,_about_5`10"_,245_pounds_2013-04-08_18-01.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
![21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-Polarlys-2013-04-11T21:16:00.000Z-File:I'm_age_44,_about_5`10"_,245_pounds_2013-04-08_18-01.jpg){kind=link}
File:I love to hang out with different people -I am very friendly and I like to go out to the club and go movie and go to the beach and go to the party- 2013-04-08 17-44.jpg
[edit]
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Very poor quality. Can't be educational when so blurry. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete quality isn't so good either Rybec (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
yet another poor quality penis image from Hahu567 Zad68 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: random poor-quality penis Polarlys (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope, most likely underage Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal vanity photo, out of scope. P199 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope, most likely underage Polarlys (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal vanity photo, out of scope. P199 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope, most likely underage Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it useful for anything? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The description says "test". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible license washing Alan Lorenzo (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it's the only image on flickr for that uploader, no other info there. Penyulap ☏ 23:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyvio McZusatz (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible license washing Alan Lorenzo (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyvio. –moogsi (blah) 06:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a copyrighted image on the computer screen which dominates the image. Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I just notice that image is also unfree with an ND restriction. I should have failed the image before filing this DR. This DR can be speedily closed as Delete on this grounds. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- What is the problam?! Wikipadia is not a non-commercially site! אור פ (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio: NC licenses not allowed (COM:L). –moogsi (blah) 06:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The picture is a bit blurred. (Better quality night shots of the same place exist.) Kulmalukko (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep This would be a reason not to use it, not a reason to delete it. Please notice that this image is used in Serbian wikinews. Then, it would fall under commons:scope even if bad quality was a good reason not to fall within scope - which it is not.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: still in use. Can't be deleted with this rationale per com:scope. McZusatz (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, no indication of what this photo would be used for Danrok (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, it was a test done from the Commons app for Android, in the context of mw:Mobile QA/Commons uploads. No personal attachment. It documents 3 Wikimedia stickers that many would love to have and happen to be in my laptop. Other than that... ;)--Qgil (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Nope Penyulap ☏ 02:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, no indication of what this photo would be used for Danrok (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I'd like to have a list of images like this. They would be handy for illustrating texts.
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Penyulap ☏ 02:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP Ezarateesteban 21:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, small resolution, out of scope Ezarateesteban 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP Ezarateesteban 21:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, self-promotional image. Jespinos (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: personal photo in use in userpage, it is possible Ezarateesteban 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Outside of COM:SCOPE: commons is not facebook. Personal file of user without other useful contribution except self-promotion. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Used for self-promotion on enwiki --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal group photo. Danrok (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: possibly copyright violation Ezarateesteban 21:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality photo of a subject already covered by plenty of other photos. Danrok (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete "Magic trick, now you see Cat.jpg a typical cat image, now watch closely..." Penyulap ☏ 02:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal family photo Danrok (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep valuable anthropology image, we need more of these. Penyulap ☏ 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Penyulap Ezarateesteban 21:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, vanity photo Danrok (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Penyulap ☏ 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright unclear, SVGs exist. Fry1989 eh? 23:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Bad quality Danrok (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unesul because it's very moved Ezarateesteban 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Personal portrait. Danrok (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose, subject already covered. Poor quality Danrok (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
porque esta en un tamaño muy grande Pedro 1293 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no es razon valida para borrar Ezarateesteban 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Danrok (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, out of scope Ezarateesteban 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Poor quality Danrok (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree (as poster). I've now provided an adapted, generic text version: v:Open_science/Laws -- Jtneill - Talk 13:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jtnelli Ezarateesteban 21:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvios and unused personal images.
- File:Alcides pena.jpg
- File:Alex macovei 001.jpg
- File:Youssef Msakni.jpg
- File:Florin Stefanita Costea.jpg
- File:Alex Macovei.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Loizloizqwe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality photo of a newspaper from 1991; derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
File:14 year old kid trying to make it as a rapper---has a rap group called "S-O-N" abbreviated as Sativa Over Indica 2013-04-08 23-48.jpg
[edit]
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- There does not seem to be a (notable) rap group called Sativa Over Indica, so yes, it seems like a personal photo of a new star in the making... we'll wait for the person to grow within the industry so that this photo falls into the project scope as actually educational on a rap group. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- weak keep, useful image. Penyulap ☏ 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per policy regarding personal photos/out of scope. Danrok (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unused personal image -Pete F (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Permission link just links to news blog site, same as the source, where there is no evidence that the image is released into the public domain by the CIM Group -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Very bad quality, not used, it is easy to make a better photo, a lot of images in Category:Speed limit road signs -Taivo (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images. Danrok (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It is about ones self Averysneakybox (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-Averysneakybox-2013-04-09T10:07:00.000Z-File:A_Asian_version_of_"Jener".jpeg){kind=link}
This file is about ones self Averysneakybox (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![10:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-Averysneakybox-2013-04-09T10:19:00.000Z-File:A_Asian_version_of_"Jener".jpeg){kind=link}
The file is a personal bio Averysneakybox (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-Averysneakybox-2013-04-09T10:23:00.000Z-File:A_Asian_version_of_"Jener".jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
![00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/04/09#c-INeverCry-2013-04-16T00:30:00.000Z-File:A_Asian_version_of_"Jener".jpeg){kind=link}
Description seems to be a joke Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused user's self image. The en:wp article in which it was used is now deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Former deletion nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bensberg Schloss 7b.jpg
The photo was originally licensed with GFDL on de.wiki. The copyright status of the painting (and thus the photo) in the United States is unknown. –moogsi (blah) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Low quality. Useless Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Likely cropped from this image at http://apartadosemanasanta2011sanbarbate.blogspot.de/p/domingo-de-ramos.html. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://static.elheraldo.co/sites/default/files/imagecache/detalle_articulo/JairoSoto/web_3704.jpg Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a picture of someone in the background. I would rather upload a different picture that doesn't have a person in it. Zumbeste (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As the description says "Love Trip" - it's private and personal. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal family photo Danrok (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I uploaded them because it's a form of play that's common for children, and not well represented in our current collection in Category:Children playing. They aren't random personal photos; I uploaded them because I think they have educational value.--ragesoss (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per ragesoss –moogsi (blah) 11:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal family photo Danrok (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I uploaded them because it's a form of play that's common for children, and not well represented in our current collection in Category:Children playing. They aren't random personal photos; I uploaded them because I think they have educational value.--ragesoss (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- You could improve the images, the background is distracting, possibly there is a green garden nearby to use as a backdrop. It helps if the tops of the swords are in the frame, so it is clear they are swords rather than a maypole for example. I have no opinion on keep or delete for these. Penyulap ☏ 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per ragesoss –moogsi (blah) 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
File description says it is from a photoshoot. No EXIF data present. Likely to be a cpvio. New uploader. Rahul Bott (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unused personal image -Pete F (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, at best fair use applies — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK ▎enWiki 09:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused image - apparently of a close relative of the uploader Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a personal image. Useless according to the scope of the project Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 06:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
bad quality photos not wanted according to policy Danrok (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree--Bellayet (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright unclear, SVGs exist. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value at this tiny size INeverCry 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination –moogsi (blah) 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo of non-notable company - single upload of user INeverCry 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo of non-notable company/group - single upload of user INeverCry 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Tumblr lw7pgyoi951qk4o4wo1 500.jpg that this image was cropped from was apparently not the original uploader's own work, and it has been deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The artist died 2004, his work is not free! Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images. Danrok (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images. Danrok (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the Gibraltarese red ensign in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 22:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the Guernsey red ensign in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Same picture used in here on 9 May 2010. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 16 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) 15:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Available earlier, although with lower resolution (see here) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution. Unusable Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality, unknown source Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Suspected Flickr washing. Jespinos (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the Jersey blue ensign in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality. (Better quality picture of this place exists.) Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- KeepAmateur quality, and bad quality is not a reason to delete. Furthermore, you don't point which is the duplicate image, and the only one I've been able to find has a different composition, different background and different graffities.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Pere prlpz PierreSelim (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't have specific bibliiographic info for this item ("Date" is of the scan/upload, not the original) to verify "prior to Jan 1 1923" PD. The subject is en:John Call Cook, who was born April 7, 1918, and the image says he is 17 years old, which puts the image at around 1935 (and therefore not old enough for PD)? The Evening Herald of Provo appears to not even have existed until 1925[1]. DMacks (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Restored -- {{PD-US-not renewed}}
Bad quality. (There is also better pictures of the same building.) Kulmalukko (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- No bad quality image. The existence of a better one is not a reason to delete according to any policy.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Pere prlpz PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Almost dublicate? (There is also similar image with jpg format, this png version may be deleted.) Kulmalukko (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Current policy is to delete exact duplicates, not "similar" images. If there is an exact duplicate, please use the {{Duplicate}} stating which file is the duplicate, and the image will be speedy-deleted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok. Here is the same picture with different format (jpg). So can I use the {{Duplicate}} in this png picture which is now nominated for deletion? --Kulmalukko (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if the png is an exact duplicate, you can. I see an slight difference but I suppose it's caused by different format or rendering, and not by a different digital processing. Anyway, you can put the {{Duplicate}} there and a sysop will check if it matches speedy deletion criteria - which I think it does.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok. Here is the same picture with different format (jpg). So can I use the {{Duplicate}} in this png picture which is now nominated for deletion? --Kulmalukko (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: a png generally cannot be an exact duplicate of a jpg, and should not be tagged with {{Duplicate}}. See Commons:Duplicate. –moogsi (blah) 10:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this useful for anything? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
See COM:TOYS. Stefan4 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that the file has been moved, although COM:FR tells that you shouldn't move files with copyright problems. The nomination is for the file, not just for the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW, no FoP in France, the USA has a w:Mickey_Mouse_Protection_Act. Sorry Tomas, I know this is annoying. 99of9 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- File:Hot air balloons in leon guanajuato mexico 2.jpg features the same balloon at the same event. Rd232 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Several points…. Starting with FoP in France… So what does FoP in France have to do with FoP in Mexico? Perhaps we should apply the FoP in reverse so we can get some decent images of France! I mean, it makes as much sense, doesn´t it? Since the picture was taken in Mexico, and Mexico has FoP #[this should apply here.]
- Second, de minimis applies, see here an example: #REDIRECT[[2]]
- Third, 7 hot air balloons appear in the image, which one is the offending one? I suppose that the pattern designs could be copyrighted on any of them. The largest one? The second largest? The third largest?
- Fourth, the image is of a hot air balloon festival, so naturally hot air balloons appear. Hot air balloons come in different shapes, colors, and are meant to be seen, photographed, etc. So all the balloons that appear here are shown in that context. By participating in such a public event, it is very unreasonable to think that participants would expect the public to refrain from photographing their particular balloon. This image records a notable public event.
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread Leon as Lyon. Geocoding or location categorization would help dolts like me. However, I don't buy the COM:DM claim, I think Mickey features prominently and is an important subject of the picture. If the other patterns are copyright too, that would only make the situation worse, not better. --99of9 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, let´s delete anything in Commons that could be copyrighted! And since just about anything that appears in photographs, clothing, signs, buildings, sculptures, etc., etc. in public view could be a copyrighted image, let´s play it safe. Let´s delete, that way we can free gigas and gigas of memory to store nothing images. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Deleting images does not free any disk space, they're just removed from public view. (That is why images can be undeleted.) As for your general remark: yes, unfortunately, a very large proportion of modern creative works are copyrighted. Some copyright exemptions may apply for specific photos of them (de minimis or freedom of panorama), or they may not. A wider exemption, "fair use", is not allowed on Commons. It has to be remembered that Commons is not a general media repository, it is a media repository of educational works that are available under a certain definition of "freely usable". You're welcome to upload images that don't meet that definition elsewhere, at your own legal risk. Rd232 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, let´s delete anything in Commons that could be copyrighted! And since just about anything that appears in photographs, clothing, signs, buildings, sculptures, etc., etc. in public view could be a copyrighted image, let´s play it safe. Let´s delete, that way we can free gigas and gigas of memory to store nothing images. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Speculations about intention of displaying or publishing works in certain ways may be tempting, but intention is only legally relevant for copyright if the law actually says so (and it rarely does). Rd232 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment - the Mickey Mouse balloon needs to be cropped out; the resulting image will not be as good, but not useless. It's clearly a derivative work, de minimis does not apply (see the Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines) and unfortunately FOP in Mexico doesn't seem to cover balloons: Commons:FOP#Mexico. Rd232 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- it may be that {{FoP-Mexico}} does apply here (I don't see any requirement of permanent display in the main law; there may be elsewhere of course). Unfortunately there's no freedom of panorama in the US, and per Commons:Lex loci protectionis, US FOP rules might well apply in a US court. (See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law.) Rd232 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all, let´s be clear on what is in the photograph. The photograph is of a hot air balloon festival. A hot air balloon is an airship designed and built to comply with aviation standards and licensed as such. So some say it is Mickey Mouse, I say it is an airship. This airship is among its airship peers in its utilitarian context. Much like a car that may be copyrighted, once it is on the freeway, in its context, it is just part of the scene. I am pretty sure that whatever legal papers there may be on the legal existence of this object do not mention Mickey Mouse, but rather refer to it as airship serial number X and so forth. The physical area (surface) where the airsip that resembles Mickey mouse is smaller than the one occupied by another airship, and definitely there are other elements that take up much more space. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's a balloon clearly designed to look like Mickey Mouse; it's a derivative work of Mickey Mouse. It doesn't matter that the balloon is a utilitarian object (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects) because the issue isn't a new copyright in the balloon, but protecting the copyright that predates the balloon. And you took the photo as a photographer, making a striking image of which the balloon is a central feature; don't now pretend you took it as a physicist, not noticing what the balloon looked like... Rd232 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting reading, and some comments... this is an airship, a 3d object... First, it would be interesting to know how some of the criteria in the link you provided found its way there. Reminds me of a law in Texas that says "When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone." If this is a serious attempt to enforce not even copyright protection, but someone´s incredibly narrow view of reality, then please go to category automobiles and have a field day! If we are to err on the side of ridiculous caution, then lets just close down commons! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately these things are irredeemably complicated and legalistic. If you can provide clarification with sources about a specific situation (country's law or relevant cases), great. If not, we have to do our best to apply what knowledge we have. About cars: no, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Vehicles. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, an airship is a vehicle... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute. This is one of the greatest things and one of its greatest dangers. Just about anybody can put whatever he wants on a page and if it goes unnoticed, it can be assumed as either poicy, procedure, or God forbids, the law cast in stone and interpreted in any manner. Here we have it clear, I say it is an airship. It is a vehicle, it transports people, it is registered under aviation regulations, it is a 3d object. That is the legal status. And there are 7 such airships in the image, why delete it on the basis of one? Why not extend the courtesy of possible copyvio to all of them? and at the same time, do so in every photograph of "possible copyvios." I mean, it was attempted in this nomination to apply French law to Mexico!!!!! The nominator accepted the mistake because it was pointed out to him, but what about the possibility that a vandal wrote opinions used as guideliness and pulling a great joke on all? Some of these claims are beyond belief! There is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical about the image. It depicts an actal public and notable event in the area of hot aiir balloons and aviation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The other balloons may fall under the "not copyrightable, as it's a utilitarian object" principle. The Mickey Mouse balloon may too, but that doesn't cancel the copyright that existed before the balloon was made. As to your general thoughts: I can only reiterate, we're doing the best with the knowledge we have; if you can add to it or correct it, great. In my experience, mistakes are mostly made in the direction of allowing things that we should not - see for example Commons:VPC#Scale_models. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- It´s all semantics my friend... And given the nature of the image in the real editorial world, its proportions, its context, the newsworthiness of the event (200+ balloons, the 2nd largest hot air balloon festival in the world) make for a legitimate image, with EV, the intent is clearly to illustrate that, and it is in line with legal and legitimate journalistic principles of photography. And if we were to look into the legal nature of the object, it is an airship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This all seems so Orwellian... manouvering language to fit desired meanings to justify desired actions... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- it is in line with legal and legitimate journalistic principles of photography - yes, absolutely. But the root of the problem - and you must accept this, and you're struggling to - is that not everything that conforms with those principles is acceptable on Commons. The main reason for this is that Commons requires files to be usable for any purpose, including commercially, and not just for journalistic purposes, where "fair use" considerations would normally cover any copyright issues. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- which hot air balloon is used in the article comes down to who is writing the article, and what a range of balloons they like and what takes their taste. For example, if the article is about that festival, then they'd pick out the most interesting balloons as a fair summary of the festival and why that festival is noteworthy. For balloons of the 21st century, it's not a great summary to have more than a few custom balloons, but those few still come down to taste. So really it's just a matter of asking random people 'could you use this in a good article'. Of course if you asked me, I'd say "Hell no!" I couldn't use that in an article, but then there are people who are slightly less blocked than me :O Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- It´s all semantics my friend... And given the nature of the image in the real editorial world, its proportions, its context, the newsworthiness of the event (200+ balloons, the 2nd largest hot air balloon festival in the world) make for a legitimate image, with EV, the intent is clearly to illustrate that, and it is in line with legal and legitimate journalistic principles of photography. And if we were to look into the legal nature of the object, it is an airship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The other balloons may fall under the "not copyrightable, as it's a utilitarian object" principle. The Mickey Mouse balloon may too, but that doesn't cancel the copyright that existed before the balloon was made. As to your general thoughts: I can only reiterate, we're doing the best with the knowledge we have; if you can add to it or correct it, great. In my experience, mistakes are mostly made in the direction of allowing things that we should not - see for example Commons:VPC#Scale_models. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute. This is one of the greatest things and one of its greatest dangers. Just about anybody can put whatever he wants on a page and if it goes unnoticed, it can be assumed as either poicy, procedure, or God forbids, the law cast in stone and interpreted in any manner. Here we have it clear, I say it is an airship. It is a vehicle, it transports people, it is registered under aviation regulations, it is a 3d object. That is the legal status. And there are 7 such airships in the image, why delete it on the basis of one? Why not extend the courtesy of possible copyvio to all of them? and at the same time, do so in every photograph of "possible copyvios." I mean, it was attempted in this nomination to apply French law to Mexico!!!!! The nominator accepted the mistake because it was pointed out to him, but what about the possibility that a vandal wrote opinions used as guideliness and pulling a great joke on all? Some of these claims are beyond belief! There is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical about the image. It depicts an actal public and notable event in the area of hot aiir balloons and aviation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, an airship is a vehicle... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately these things are irredeemably complicated and legalistic. If you can provide clarification with sources about a specific situation (country's law or relevant cases), great. If not, we have to do our best to apply what knowledge we have. About cars: no, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Vehicles. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting reading, and some comments... this is an airship, a 3d object... First, it would be interesting to know how some of the criteria in the link you provided found its way there. Reminds me of a law in Texas that says "When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone." If this is a serious attempt to enforce not even copyright protection, but someone´s incredibly narrow view of reality, then please go to category automobiles and have a field day! If we are to err on the side of ridiculous caution, then lets just close down commons! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The hot air balloon/airship may be a copyright violation of Mickey Mouse; but I don't think it is a problem here. It had to be handled by the hot air balloon festival authority, if it was a problem for them. JKadavoor Jee 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- It had to be handled by the hot air balloon festival authority - no, that makes no sense. For all we know the balloon-makers had the right to make that derivative work of Mickey Mouse (as a balloon). That does absolutely not mean that anyone else has the right to make and publish further derivatives of that derivative work. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you really imagine Disney making that balloon, take it to an international hot air balloon festival that attracts 70,000 people plus each day of the festival at the park itself, and be seen in the air by a city of 1.5 million people and to expect people, or the press, or the organizers restrain themselves of photographing this airship? Come on... where is the sanity here? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you can find something in Mexican copyright law where such expectations factor in, please let us know. Otherwise, it just comes back to the very basic point that the law says what it says, and we have to do our best to apply it. In short, please stop trying to apply common sense to legal issues, it's rarely helpful... :( Rd232 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I have gone through this before, it is even in wikipedia.... maybe the admins that nominate should read the law first... of the relevantcountry, of course...
- Mexican copyright law, taken from the oficial Mexican Government site at #[[3]]
- Chapter II
- Limitation of patrimonial rights
- Article 148
- Literary or artistic works previously published could be used, as long as the normal exploitation of the artwork is not affected, without the authorization of the copyright holder and without compensation, pointing out to the source, only in the following cases:
- II. Reproduction of articles, photographs, illustrations and comments referent to current events… or any other media, if this is not expressly prohibited by the copyright holder.
- VII. Reproduction, communication and distribution of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual procedures of the works that are visible from public places.
- So this photograph does not interfere with the normal commercial exploitation of the image in question and previously published; No announcement was made warning photographers to photograph the airship question and last, the airship was visible from a public place, and in public land.
- This image is so within the law….
- Laik oder yusers here, my inglish is not so gud so maibi someone else wants to translate the law…
- And this, incidentally, applies to the other images that have been censored.
- --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Article 148 is worth considering, but it doesn't help us here. VII doesn't cover 3D works like balloons. II doesn't cover 3D works either, and also seems to only cover text and media publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, o cualquier otro medio de difusió, i.e. published in the mass media. More generally, Art 148 has two requirements that seem hard to meet here: siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra ... citando invariablemente la fuente. COM:L requires permitting commercial reproduction, which may be a problem for the first; and citing the source - well that again suggests it's not applicable here, a balloon is not really a citable source. Rd232 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, then, the airship can be considered a 3d object, which it is, and therefore not copyrightable... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to correct myself. I misread it somehow (not sure how, now!): VII does cover 3D works - it's the freedom of panorama clause of {{FoP-Mexico}}. It seems fair to apply to that here - am I missing something? Unfortunately, we probably have to respect US law here as well (COM:L + Commons:Lex loci protectionis), and the US doesn't have freedom of panorama. Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg, the issue was that FOP needs permanent display. That's certainly a principle with some FOP laws, but I don't see it in Art. 148 part VII, which just says obras que sean visibles desde lugares públicos (objects visible from public places). Rd232 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- You've made that point before, and I've replied to it before: it doesn't matter whether the balloon is independently copyrightable; that's entirely separate from the copyright of the work it's based on. It's perfectly possible to copy a copyrighted work without generating a new copyright - but doing so doesn't make the existing copyright disappear. Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, then, in order to be o the safe side, just wipe out 99% of images in Commons, for they will be somehow questionable under any country under any excuse.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, per COM:L we need works to be OK in the US and in the source country, not every country. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- So much for wikipedia being a universal effort... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia actually only needs to respect US law, because it's served from the US and is mostly consumed online. Commons has a wider educational purpose. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever educational purpose is thus limited by shortcomings of local laws and the interpretation of these laws by not-necessarily-competent administrators in the matter. This would be an interesting call by Jim Woodward... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia actually only needs to respect US law, because it's served from the US and is mostly consumed online. Commons has a wider educational purpose. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- So much for wikipedia being a universal effort... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, per COM:L we need works to be OK in the US and in the source country, not every country. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to correct myself. I misread it somehow (not sure how, now!): VII does cover 3D works - it's the freedom of panorama clause of {{FoP-Mexico}}. It seems fair to apply to that here - am I missing something? Unfortunately, we probably have to respect US law here as well (COM:L + Commons:Lex loci protectionis), and the US doesn't have freedom of panorama. Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, then, the airship can be considered a 3d object, which it is, and therefore not copyrightable... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Article 148 is worth considering, but it doesn't help us here. VII doesn't cover 3D works like balloons. II doesn't cover 3D works either, and also seems to only cover text and media publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, o cualquier otro medio de difusió, i.e. published in the mass media. More generally, Art 148 has two requirements that seem hard to meet here: siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra ... citando invariablemente la fuente. COM:L requires permitting commercial reproduction, which may be a problem for the first; and citing the source - well that again suggests it's not applicable here, a balloon is not really a citable source. Rd232 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
:
Oppose Per Darth Vader, dear Tomas. No need to have the same false discussion every year... ;) --Jebulon (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- My dear Jebulon, not false to me... the image is perfectly legal and ethical, of a newsworthy event and editorial use. What else is needed? To respond to imaginary dangers on somebody´s paranoid mind? We must always, in order to have progress, push the boudries of our comfort zone. Otherwise, nothing is gained, nothing learned, nothing accomplished... To have fear of the imagined dictate our actions is just a no no for me.... and this is just a picture! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't feel any fear, and actually I don't understand what you mean, but my Darth Vader argument is no more relevant, because I've just noticed that the Darth Vader balloon files have been restored (even my own derivative work). Therefore I cancel my agreement for a deletion. I think it is fair.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Exactly the same discussion as with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg. No reason to believe the outcome should be different. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- So much for a self imposed interaction ban... Nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hum - that wasn't really necessary, and neither is File:Mickey mouseless balloon festival.jpg (uploaded by Tomas, will probably need a separate DR to judge if de minimis applies, so thanks for that). Please show a bit more caution, both of you. Rd232 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep
OK {{FoP-Mexico}} Penyulap ☏ 22:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK for FoP-Mexico is my conclusion at the moment too. But: there's no freedom of panorama in the US, and per Commons:Lex loci protectionis, US FOP rules might well apply in a US court. (See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law.) That's a problem per COM:L (all works need to be OK in US). Rd232 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no FOP on Tatooine either, and we can hardly try to predict US courts except to predict they'll continue to churn out absurdly senseless crap that no-one can predict in advance. But if we are going to delete stuff compliant with laws of the country of origin for the benefit of US laws that MIGHT exist as the result of a possible future absurd judgement, then I'M ALL FOR IT !!! WOOHOO !!!! let the fun and games begin !!! WOO HOO OH YEAH !!!
- ... or not ?
- This image is smack in the middle of enormous categories of FOP works from many countries, deleting one because all of those works in all of those categories might one day need to be wiped out is clutching at a straw.
- Possibly this isn't so much about choice of law, it's about choice of user. Someone who uploads good and useful images in such a way as to feed his pet trolls and keep them over excited, but then, don't feed the trolls is probably more a minority essay somewhere rather than policy, because one or two editors keeping lot of trolls on the project busy lets all the rest of the good contributors have a chance to do their work in peace. I want to point out however, that I don't mean this particular 3,000 word keep discussion of course, I mean generally. Penyulap ☏ 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep as is. On further consideration, I think {{FoP-Mexico}} applies for Mexico (I see no evidence that permanent exhibition is a requirement in the law), and {{Not-free-US-FOP}} for the US, as we didn't actually clearly decide that US FOP failures for foreign works require deletion. (See Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.) I'd misremembered the latter, and to make it less likely that happens again, I've added a new subsection at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Rd232 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I see the photo of the festival, not of the specific balloon. COM:DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is not how de minimis works. Please read the COM:DM guidelines. Rd232 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- You mean the ones that state:
- That is not how de minimis works. Please read the COM:DM guidelines. Rd232 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Variations in laws and in uses of works mean that firm rules are not possible. As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:
- the file is in use to illustrate X
- the file is categorised in relation to X
- X is referenced in the filename
- X is referenced in the description
- X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
- from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
- So let's see. The file is used to illustrate the entire hot air balloon festival, the category Mickey Mouse was added not by uploader and can be removed, the file name references the festival, the description references the festival, Mickey Mouse cannot be removed without making making the file nearly useless, the last one is "I don't know about other uploads" (somebody who cares can check). Thus all, or nearly all, points show that it is De Minimis. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- "the file is categorised in relation to X" - the intention of that principle is that if it's not silly to categorise in relation to X, then it's less likely to meet DM. It's not like you can change the legal position by removing the category. But actually I wasn't looking at those principles, I was looking at where it falls in the table below those principles, and I think it's the second-to-last row: Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. It falls there because the Mickey Mouse balloon is obviously a key part of the composition, and not in any way incidental or unavoidable (the core idea of de minimis). Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would ask myself a question: "Can somebody take a photo of the balloon festival without that particular balloon?" We can see that this one is in the middle of other ones, and not at the periphery, we can see that it is a part of the scene, but not the major part of it. This is why it is clearly DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Can somebody take a photo of the balloon festival without that particular balloon?" - yes, that's one of the aspects of judging DM. The answer is, somebody could and did: File:International hot air balloon festival in leon guanajuato mexico 02.jpg, File:Hot air balloons in leon guanajuato mexico 3.jpg. Also, it is a common misconception that "not the major part of the image" is enough for DM. It isn't, as COM:DM ought to make clear (feel free to suggest improvements on the relevant talk page). Rd232 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also DM to a degree from the start because it's not the dark lord's head, it's a balloon. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody comes along and cuts the Mouse's head out of this photo and uploads it, that would be a DR of a DR of the copyrighted work, and that's a copyvio. Not every image where somebody can see Mouse is owned by Disney, however. If we have an image of the crowd, and somebody is wearing Mouse's t-shirt, that's DM, and if we have an image of a balloon show, and one of the balloons is in the form of a Mouse, that's DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody comes along and cuts the Mouse's head out of this photo and uploads it, that would be a DR of a DR of the copyrighted work, and that's a copyvio. - ? how it can be a copyvio of a copyrighted work when the copyrighted work isn't shown? A T-shirt in a large crowd is likely to be DM, yes, but that's quite different from the case at hand. Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody comes along and cuts the Mouse's head out of this photo and uploads it, that would be a DR of a DR of the copyrighted work, and that's a copyvio. Not every image where somebody can see Mouse is owned by Disney, however. If we have an image of the crowd, and somebody is wearing Mouse's t-shirt, that's DM, and if we have an image of a balloon show, and one of the balloons is in the form of a Mouse, that's DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would ask myself a question: "Can somebody take a photo of the balloon festival without that particular balloon?" We can see that this one is in the middle of other ones, and not at the periphery, we can see that it is a part of the scene, but not the major part of it. This is why it is clearly DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- "the file is categorised in relation to X" - the intention of that principle is that if it's not silly to categorise in relation to X, then it's less likely to meet DM. It's not like you can change the legal position by removing the category. But actually I wasn't looking at those principles, I was looking at where it falls in the table below those principles, and I think it's the second-to-last row: Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. It falls there because the Mickey Mouse balloon is obviously a key part of the composition, and not in any way incidental or unavoidable (the core idea of de minimis). Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- So let's see. The file is used to illustrate the entire hot air balloon festival, the category Mickey Mouse was added not by uploader and can be removed, the file name references the festival, the description references the festival, Mickey Mouse cannot be removed without making making the file nearly useless, the last one is "I don't know about other uploads" (somebody who cares can check). Thus all, or nearly all, points show that it is De Minimis. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, you can have a pd image that cannot be cropped to zoom in on some dm items within it.
- A copyright item can be the sole focus of a work if it is sufficiently transformed, I'm not saying the balloon is, but I'm saying it adds a little onto the scale to go with the DM and it comes out as moot just the same in the case of FOP anyway.. Penyulap ☏ 03:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Streaking is illegal in many countries. But how photographing a Streaker will illegal? Here the copyright violation has done by the airship manufacturer; not by Tomas. According to Tomas, the airship has proper registration and license to fly over the air of Mexico. So this violation is with the permission of Mexican authorities. Other concerns are well under {{FoP-Mexico}}. Further, the airship manufacturer can never claim a copyright for this design since this is an imitation of Mickey Mouse. JKadavoor Jee 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your streaking comparison isn't helpful, since it introduces COM:PEOPLE complications; let's leave that to one side. First, whatever the Mexican authorities did in terms of balloon/aircraft registration has no bearing on copyright; it's quite likely that those authorities didn't even consider copyright, and even if they did, it wouldn't prevent legal liability for violating Disney's copyright, if that copyright is violated by making or photographing the balloon. Second, whether the balloon maker had the copyright holder's permission to make the balloon or not has no bearing on the right of anyone else to make derivative works of the balloon. Third, it's irrelevant whether the balloon is independently copyrightable - that doesn't negate the original copyright. All of this is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is whether Mexican freedom of panorama covers the case. Rd232 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'm just learning things. JKadavoor Jee 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Copyright is a bit like an onion - layers and layers, and it makes you cry! ;) Rd232 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Box of chocolates. Box of chocolates, and I ate all the good ones. You can have the empty box though, I know who to ask for more ;) Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Copyright is a bit like an onion - layers and layers, and it makes you cry! ;) Rd232 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'm just learning things. JKadavoor Jee 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Hot_air_balloon_sans_darth_vader.jpg too. JKadavoor Jee 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as {{FoP-Mexico}} does not appear to require a permanent installation. Regarding the consideration of US law as raised by Rd232 I want to add that there has been no U.S. precedent for the application of FOP in the United States for photographs taken in other countries as outlined by Clindberg:
- It's entirely possible that courts would rule along the lines of that one Germany cross-border FoP case -- the sculptor owns the copyright of the statue, and while the photograph is not deemed a derivative work in the country where the statue is located, it is in the U.S., and thus there is possible infringement based on how the photograph is used. Or, it may be judges take into account that the photographer expected to fully own the photograph in the source country, using foreign law to determine that the copyright owner of the photograph is entirely the photographers, or that the FoP situation alters the fair use calculation, or other possibilities.
- Given this, a strict deletion of FOP cases per lex loci protectionis which considers everything unfree that would not be free if photographed in the United States appears premature. There was no consensus yet to enforce this. Hence, I suggest to use templates like {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to warn potential reusers in the United States but to otherwise keep them at least until we have a U.S. precedent. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The related file File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg has restored per {{FoP-Mexico}} after the discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive. So I think this too can be closed as "kept" per that discussion and per the opinion of AFBorchert above. JKadavoor Jee 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or crop out Mickey Mouse balloon and Keep. Regarding AFBorchert's point: If the existence of copyright depends on use, it is not OK to host it on Commons. We promise our readers that our files are free to reuse, regardless of the context. See COM:LICENSE. Regardless of whether or not it's been litigated, there's no reasonable interpretation of US law in which the mere creation, display, and photography of a derivative work on foreign soil could obviate copyright under U.S. law. This is clearly a derivative work, and not de minimus. Commons policy requires that the photo not be encumbered by copyright in the U.S. -Pete F (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also worth noting: Wikimedia has a policy for images whose reuse is dependent on the nature of the use; it's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (EDP) and covers things like English Wikipedia's acceptance, in limited circumstances, of images under the U.S. "fair use" doctrine. Wikimedia Commons is explicitly banned from adopting an EDP. I believe a case like this is exactly the kind of thing the Board of Trustees had in mind when passing that resulotion: an image representing Mickey Mouse might be acceptable on a Wikimedia project (like English Wikipedia) but only in the context of a rationale that explains why it can be used, legally in the U.S., on that specific article. Not without an EDP and rationale. -Pete F (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Such a rationale, that an image can't exist on commons with any conditions to it's use, would mean deleting a vast number of images that are accepted under de minimus. There are countless images hosted here that have conditions on their use. What applies to one image we'll need to apply to all. I don't mind helping knock off the first thousand or so, but I think we should discuss the complexities of copyright law on a more central page, so it's applied in a uniform manner. Penyulap ☏ 05:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth - those are arguments which should really be had about the wider issue of how FOP in other countries is handled for US copyright. The conclusion of previous discussion was unclear, and resulted in {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Template:Not-free-US-FOP. Basically, the conclusion you're arguing for affects so many images that it needs wider discussion - as was attempted inconclusively at Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. That discussion petered out in early December; maybe it's time for another crack at it. Rd232 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This kind of DR will be complex until we have a clear answer to {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. The consensus for now is to apply FOP exceptions from the origin country. PierreSelim (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, article was deleted though AFD for notability concerns in the English Wikipedia Jaranda wat's sup 05:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep useful image. Penyulap ☏ 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, article was deleted from the english wikipedia because of notability concerns Jaranda wat's sup 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
own work very doubtfull as the subject died 1943. JuTa 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept per UnDR. Uploader is son and heir of the author. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the Manx red ensign in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused and uncategorized user's self image Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep useful Penyulap ☏ 00:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In which way, dear Penyulap? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC).
- There are a few ways, but not all of them are immediate or immediately apparent. People of the world, people of the places of the world, ethnic groups, ethnic sub-sets, there are a lot of expanding articles and without pictures of the people, then how do we know what a typical Melanesian man would look like ? or the difference between Congolese and Zambian ?
- I think you know how fast I can find images that are appropriate for a given topic :D I think some people get a little annoyed by it sometimes. But when I went looking for a typical Mongolian boy for a graphics lab request, I was amazed at just how little we have to illustrate our articles. It is a really simple task, to describe a typical Man, Woman, and child in each ethnic group, but I absolutely doubt that anyone could possibly do it for 50 ethnic groups if a reward of $50,000 was posted, it is THAT difficult.
- I do have other ideas, less likely to be embraced, like keeping many for jigsaw-style assembly of new images, I would like to use the eyes from one image with the nose from another and the mouth from a third image to assemble free drawings of notable people for whom no free images exist. But my keep votes are not for that, it's just for basic anthropology articles. So the unused personal images that are no good, I vote delete on, but for ones that I think would be ideal to illustrate articles, I vote keep.
- It is true that some, or most aren't classified as yet, but nobody can do that for everyone in the world themselves, they can only do some. I would rely on your opinion for people from the Indian continent :) and mine for south-east Asia. But if we have no images, then the question will anyone be able to categorise them later is moot. Maybe we can have a VP discussion and new top category of useful as yet uncategorised people of the world/anthropology images. I have been thinking to make a bot and a separate wiki to copy them off wiki prior to their deletion. Penyulap ☏ 10:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mehmet is the Turkish form of the name Muhammad and Altunas is most probably Altunash (s written with a tale in Turkish instead of our "sh") - I doubt if there is a dearth of Turkish origin people images on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC).
- Photos which could be used for the purposes of demographics or anthropology would need some kind of reliable evidence to show where the photo was taken, where that person was born, and so on. For all we know the person in this photo could be from just about any country. It doesn't even have a description. Danrok (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Hindustanilanguage, you instantly know more than I do. Danrok, I think there is no need to claim for example 'this IS a turkish person' for an article. The purpose of illustration would be to suggest 'a turkish person LOOKS LIKE this' if indeed that is the case. It is easier than taking pencil to paper and sketching a typical turk. Penyulap ☏ 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- You would be taking some risk with that. You don't have the right to attribute such claims to photos of living people, unless you either provide evidence to prove your claims, or have a signed model release from the subject permitting you to do as you wish with that photo. Danrok (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- To make a claim that the man in this image is Chinese, you may well be correct. To place it in the 'three piece suit' or 'rimless glasses' or 'business attire' articles, I don't think anything more than the permission already given is required. It is often the case that sufficient editors all agree on a particular statement about a particular image. Penyulap ☏ 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Low quality image; we have e.g. File:MikeJames.jpg of the same person. –moogsi (blah) 11:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't this file need a PD rationale for the United States? –moogsi (blah) 04:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The picture is over exposed. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Please tell us which commons policy says overexposed images should be deleted. In this image I wouldn't dare to say that over-exposition is not purposely done.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that over exposing makes the image poor quality (unclear) and since there is many pictures of the same bridge, the poorest ones may be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't a policy of accepting only quality images, or about having only a limited number of images for each subject. There are exceptions for nudity, for unused low quality small crops of bigger images, for exact or scaled down duplicates, or for blurred versions of sharper images, but usually low quality or redundancy doesn't provide grounds for deletion. I suggest reading commons:scope and taking a look at archived deletion requests before nominating more images for deletion.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that over exposing makes the image poor quality (unclear) and since there is many pictures of the same bridge, the poorest ones may be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The image was submitted to the Graphics Lab for improvement, but I'm not so sure it can be improved in its present state. If an original image exists before the colors got all whacked out, we might have some luck making it presentable. Regarding the specific reason for this deletion request (bad quality), the subject is covered here. – JBarta (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to delete if a pic is overexposed. The colours looked like a photshop accident but are more natural now.--Hic et nunc (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not the greatest, but more or less presentable now (thanks to nice work by Hic et nunc). No reason to delete. (Still would be nice to get the original if it exists though.) – JBarta (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: thx @Hic et nunc & @Amada44 McZusatz (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Penyulap ☏ 23:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not PD (see Template talk:PD-Coa-Finland) Elisardojm (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unlikely own work, see http://caetanearaltamira.blogspot.de/2013/02/cuidado-seu-colega-de-trabalho-pode.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/WvcjX+(Caetaneando). -- Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of a 2D art. COM:FOP#India not extended for 2D arts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- One may also crop it, to remove the poster, but then the original upload has to be deleted anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
probably a copyvio. 84.245.229.37 13:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No compelling evidence that the author isn't the uploader, e.g. evidence of previous publication –moogsi (blah) 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not own work, at best this is a textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This image is currently available on Panoramio under the license all rights reserved, see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/69273888. Despite of having the same username, the Panoramio user is not necessarily the same person as the Commons user. Jespinos (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This is very obviously not an "own work"--it's clearly a publicity still of some type. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality. Danrok (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Fake or non-notable book cover. Jespinos (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- have you asked the uploader what it is ? maybe it's a new book. Penyulap ☏ 23:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- No and neither it is necessary. The user already was notified about this deletion request and it is here where he has to voice his opinion. Jespinos (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously not own work, per uploaders statement "I TOOK SOME PICTURES FROM WEB AND MAKE IT". Sadly, it's on Commons since September 2012. -- Túrelio (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. refreshing to see that the focus of their attention is outside of their pants. Can't blame them for trying. Penyulap ☏ 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not PD (see Template talk:PD-Coa-Finland) Elisardojm (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Possible copyvio too. Jespinos (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The image is assembled from at least two images, it could be the work of the uploader. It's only just been uploaded by the editor, so it would be better to chat to them and see if they are intending to use it somewhere, such as their usepage. It would be good to have more people who can do photo-manipulation. Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not PD (see Template talk:PD-Coa-Finland) Elisardojm (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not PD (see Template talk:PD-Coa-Finland) Elisardojm (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably copyvio Rastrojo (D•ES) 21:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep useful Penyulap ☏ 23:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
http://www.schattdecor.de/fileadmin/schattdecor/editors/documents/Medienservice/Unternehmensmedien/Laenderbroschuere/CN_Schattdecor_Shanghai.pdf; Copyright owned by Schattdecor not the uploader. AddisWang (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image includes deleted image. Takabeg (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, blurred Danrok (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: So blurry it looks like a painting → Out of project scope PierreSelim (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete "All rights reserved" Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation RomanM82 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio. Scan from around 1968 Tekstman (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality shot, not needed because there are 2 other, better shots in Category:Houses in Bondi Junction, New South Wales Sardaka (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
no educational value Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, outside project scope. –moogsi (blah) 12:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused drawing, no educational value Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, no camera EXIF, uploaded with other copyvios of this person (see uploader talk) Эlcobbola talk 19:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently not PD (see Template talk:PD-Coa-Finland) Elisardojm (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Also here. I can't tell if this is an official version of the coat of arms (which is {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}) or if it is someone else's drawing of it. In either case, it is not own work by the uploader as currently claimed. Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 20:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
unused biography of a close relative of the uploader in pdf format. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The maps are likely not own work.
- File:Riberalta.JPG
- File:San javier.JPG
- File:Mapa de Trinidad.JPG
- File:Municipio de Nuevo Manoa - Pando.JPG
- File:Municipio de Eureka - Pando.JPG
- File:Municipio de Villa Nueva - Pando.JPG
- File:Municipio de Ingavi - Pando.JPG
- File:Provincia Abuna.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- please be sure to direct this user to the Commons:Graphics lab map workshop. Penyulap ☏ 23:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Small images without EXIF data, please upload the original files, or send a permission via COM:OTRS.
- File:Vecinos alto FEJUVE.jpg
- File:Evo Morales en Sucre 2012.jpg
- File:Mercado Cooperativo de Guaymallén.jpg
Yann (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use: out of scope as neither realistically useful for an educational purpose nor legitimately in use.
- File:UN UOMO SOLO.jpg
- File:L'UOMO DEI SOGNI.jpg
- File:L'uomo a sorpresa.jpg
- File:Autunno 1934.jpg
- File:LO SCORPIONE.jpg
- File:L'OSPITE.jpg
- File:Il ritorno.jpg
- File:L'ANGELO NERO.jpg
- File:LETTERA AD UN FIGLIO MORTO.jpg
- File:Viaggio Astrale.jpg
- File:FEDE.jpg
- File:IL SILENTE.jpg
- File:L'INIZIAZIONE.jpg
- File:L'uomo senza volto.jpg
- File:Memorie di uno schiavo.jpg
- File:Dachau 1945.jpg
- File:Estate 1934.jpg
- File:IL FREDDO INTERIORE.jpg
- File:Gennaio 1933.jpg
Rrburke (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ateneo Nash (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:ManuelNúñezArauna1999.jpg
- File:Manuelnuñez2012.jpg
- File:Neil Logo.jpg
- File:Conquistadores Logo.jpg
- File:Manuelconquistadores.jpg
- File:ManuelyNeil.jpg
- File:ATENEO NASH.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
no educational value, unused logos. no information
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Likely not in com:scope. --McZusatz (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Gente-hablando.jpg
- File:Guitarra ac.jpg
- File:Casa enanos.jpg
- File:ElAmbientalismo.jpg
- File:Primaria LBJ de noche.jpg
- File:Primerapiedra.jpg
- File:PrimariaLBJ.jpg
- File:Placa inaugural de la primaria oficial LBJ.jpg
- File:Molcajete mexicano.jpg
- File:Aljojuca.jpg
- File:Parque municipal de San Salvador El seco.jpg
INeverCry 19:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Typical stock photography, no EXIF, small size PierreSelim (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is the author of the images.
- File:Girondins-2009-champions.jpg
- File:25-ans-ultramarines.jpg
- File:Grirondins de Bordeaux 2013.jpg
- File:Nouveau stade de bordeaux.jpg
- File:Girondins de bordeaux en 1996.jpg
- File:Lizarazu Girondin en 1996.jpg
- File:Dugarry girondin 1996.jpg
- File:Zidane explose en 1996.jpg
- File:Alain Giresse à Bordeaux.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deyabu1985 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Improbable claim of "own work": images of Rihanna widely available on the web (some here, for example, where they are credited to "AKM-GSI", i.e. http://www.akmgsi.com/ )
- File:DWT Jump.jpg
- File:DWT Love7 Song.jpg
- File:DWT Only Girl.jpg
- File:DWT Man Down.jpg
- File:DWT Stay.jpg
Rrburke (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giancarla Parisi (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IgnacioJacob94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work.
Jespinos (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaimiyo2210 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Vistazocancha.jpg
- File:Vistazolateralisb.jpg
- File:Jardinbotanicoisb.jpg
- File:Estrellaisb.jpg
- File:Formaacionlun.jpg
- File:Bernardoherrera.jpg
- File:Bandaisb.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jazz4twomore (talk · contribs)
[edit]unknown business, unknown ppl. no educational value
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
- File:Me-Owemart Logo.jpg
- File:Me-owemart.jpg
- File:Meomoney Logo.jpg
- File:The First Store Signage open as Me-Owe Kids Store.jpg
- File:Melvin & Riowe The super Kids.jpg
- File:Insight View of First Me-OweMart Corporate Store in Gurgaon.png
- File:The Signage of the Me-OweMart store in Gurgaon.JPG
- File:The Fisr Logo of Me-Owe Mart.png
INeverCry 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Adding one more...
- File:Meowkids.jpg (Uploaded by ShrutiS31 (talk · contribs))
- Delete all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all as promo, however, File:Melvin & Riowe The super Kids.jpg would be useful if there was permission and the artist understood what we would like to do with it first, but I can't be bothered to ask. Penyulap ☏ 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Percigutierrez (talk · contribs)
[edit]One personal photo, one personal artwork and one manipulated version of a non-free photo grabbed from the Internet, all with meaningless filenames and nonsensical descriptions. Unused and not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope.
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Manidad island.jpg
- File:Palaui island.jpg
- File:SunCity at Santa Ana Cagayan.jpg
- File:Viray-festival-in-santa-ana-cagayan 33972 600x450.jpg
- File:The White Sand of Santa Ana Cagayan.jpg
- File:Cabo Engano.jpg
- File:Anguib Beach Santa Ana Cagayan.JPG
- File:Dos Hermanas Island, Santa Ana, Cagayan.JPG
- File:Cape Engano Light House.JPG
- File:Cape Engano, Santa Ana Cagayan.JPG
- File:Cape Engano Lighthouse view from mainland Santa Ana.JPG
INeverCry 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: watermarks on some images, others can be found on internet => copyvios PierreSelim (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rupertreyneke (talk · contribs)
[edit]Paintings by Elena Lomakin, contemporary artist. No permission
- File:Deep Red in the Forest October 2007.jpg
- File:Twelve Noon 5 25'' x 8 25'' mm on paper November 2005.jpg
- File:Mesmerized 7 5'' x 10 5'' mm on paper January 2008 -1.jpg
- File:Deep Purple in the Corner 9'' x 12'' mm on paper May 2008 .jpg
- File:Before the Storm 8 5'' x 11'' mm on paper June 2007.jpg
Some random photos
- File:Elena.jpg
- File:House of Charm.jpg -- © on Flickr
- File:HouseofCharm.jpg -- as above
- File:MOLAreception.jpg -- © on Flickr
–moogsi (blah) 08:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Santiiago Ivan Reyes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- File:Santiago en 2013.jpg seems useful, the others Delete Penyulap ☏ 23:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vazque2014 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 20:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Images from mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/
[edit]- File:Type97 Te-Ke.jpg
- File:Char D1.jpg
- File:Fra-Char2C-Destroyed.jpg
- File:Char2C Berry.jpg
- File:ARL 44.jpg
- File:Char2C 99.jpg
- File:Char D2.jpg
- File:CamionettaDeserticaAS37.jpg
- File:Skoda PA-II-del.jpg
- File:Type 1 Ho-ki.jpg
- File:Škoda STH.jpg
- File:Škoda MTH.jpg
- File:PragaT9.jpg
- File:PragaT8.jpg
- File:PragaT7.jpg
- File:PragaTH-T6.jpg
- File:Praga T4.jpg
- File:Jap-prototype-Kanda.jpg
- File:Type91-experimental-hvy.jpg
- File:Type97 Te-Ke.jpg
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/disclaimer.htm makes it clear that the person who created this website is not the copyright holder of these images. A lot of them are likely public domain based on being works of the US federal government or because their copyright has expired. They need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the GFDL license templates are clearly absurd. The ones from this site that have a PD tag with a reasonable explanation, I have not nominated ... but the ones that are claiming to be GFDL or PD life+70 but dated in the 1930s or some such thing, I have listed here. They either need to be properly sourced and properly tagged or deleted. --UserB (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete no permission for a free use given for every image --High Contrast (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
statue of copyrighted character. No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal photo Danrok (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep valuable anthropology image, we need more of these. Penyulap ☏ 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you think it could use some more context to have any anthropological value? (I have no strong feelings either way about this file, but you could make the same argument about a picture of anyone) –moogsi (blah) 21:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep-Context provided by categorisation which has now been done-ethnographic value in recording a indian/Bangladeshi minority in the 21st Century.--KTo288 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: –moogsi (blah) 00:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
What is this? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not realistically useable for an educational purpose MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
repited image Fgabriel (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request, near-dupe of File:Meda Neve 2013 Torre.jpg –moogsi (blah) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
probably copyvio. 84.245.229.37 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Previously published promo shot. –moogsi (blah) 01:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 68.38.60.219 as no license (no license)
This is listed as {{PD-ineligible}} and I'd say that this tag likely is valid. Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason that a two-tone image consisting only of words in a simple type produced in the US would not qualify as {{PD-text}}. There is no element of this design that could be recognized as uniquely originating from this image. 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs)
- Note that this was produced in Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep – Two-tone text. Simple & unoriginal. Current license tag is appropriate. Senator2029 01:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Is just a simple text. Vitor MazucoMsg 00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: too simple to attach copyright. –moogsi (blah) 00:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MagnusA as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Doubt "own work" made by the uploader
Likely {{PD-textlogo}} I'd say. Stefan4 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This new file was uploaded by Bankomat AB 9th April 2013. We have the license to use the Bankomat logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatid2012 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: –moogsi (blah) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MagnusA as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Doubt this is "own work" by the user.
I can't find this anywhere else. The sign seems to be below the threshold of originality and any artistic aspects are probably covered by {{FoP-Sweden}} anyway as lots of these signs are permanently installed in public place outdoors. Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This sign is Bankomat AB:s new signs for our ATM machines in Sweden. This picture is uploaded by Bankomat AB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatid2012 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: –moogsi (blah) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: –moogsi (blah) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - single upload of user INeverCry 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: –moogsi (blah) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 09:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Nowhere different from the logos in the category Logos of websites. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: See nominator's reasons. Unused. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality. (There is also better quality picture with same view.) Kulmalukko (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Normal quality image. The existence of a better one is not a reason to delete according to any policy.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that picture is taken by me. I have later taken a better (clearer) shot with the same view. There is no reason to keep this old one. --Kulmalukko (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you mean File:Jyväskylä3.jpg it seem to be the same city from the same point, but it's a different crop and it's taken in a different month and a different time, and with a different weather. I can even see that some trees are green in the July image and brown in the October one. Both images are clearly different.
- When you say "There is no reason to keep this old one", do you mean that you have checked ALL possible and imaginable educational uses of these images and you are sure that the old image is unuseful for any of them? If you mean this you could be right, but I could never be sure this way. It's true that most wikipedia uses would chose the better image, but I see the set of those two images very useful to illustrate landscape change with seasons in this part of Finland - whenever somebody wanted to illustrate it, in a WMF project or anywhere else.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that picture is taken by me. I have later taken a better (clearer) shot with the same view. There is no reason to keep this old one. --Kulmalukko (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As Pere prlpz. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Potentially useful, and not an exact duplicate MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality. There is many better pics of these birds. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The picture is showing a flock of Cygnus cygnus feeding. The birds are identifiable and picture shows their habitat. We have only couple of similar kind pictures here. –Makele-90 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Potentially useful, and not that bad MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. (More brighter picture of this same building exists.) Kulmalukko (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Different date and building under construction. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Potentially useful MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality. A there is also better quality picture of this food. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks perfactly OK to me. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Several better shots of this building exist. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This one would be a good reason not to nominate this image as valued image or quality image, but it is not a reason to delete it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a great picture, but good enough to be realistiaclly useful for an educational purpose MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of pictures of copyrighted characters. Vantey (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is a shop. It has some copyrighted characters but it is not the main part.--Yhz1221 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Printed chracters are far too prominent to be de minimis MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The picture is a bit blurred. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
yeah "a bit" blurred. But all is clear.--Quahadi Añtó 18:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep, I took a quick look in the categories this is under, but didn't see a similar but much better photo (there are three other similar but blurry pictures). Rybec (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Rybec McZusatz (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Too dark picture. (Better pictures of this building exist.) Kulmalukko (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure that several better shots of this building exist, of course, but the picture was made under the rain, a meteorological phenomenon very common in Lleida. Rain and fog it's a hallmark of this town. --Enfo (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is many dark pictures of this building looking almost the same ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). In those pictures the details are unclear, which doesn't make all of them educationally important. I think at least part of them could be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- All of these "dark" pictures show mostly the walls, and incidentally the bell tower, that rises behind it. These walls are a cultural heritage monument. I don't know why they must be removed. --Enfo (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is many dark pictures of this building looking almost the same ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). In those pictures the details are unclear, which doesn't make all of them educationally important. I think at least part of them could be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:44_Seu_Vella,_vista_del_darrere.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:45_Seu_Vella,_vista_del_darrere.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:58_La_Seu_Vella,_al_peu_de_la_muralla.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:59_Seu_Vella_i_muralles.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seu_Vella_P1060546.JPG){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seu_Vella_P1060547.JPG){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seu_Vella_P1060553.JPG){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seu_Vella_P1060554.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Not a good image, but just about useable MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Several better shots of this building exist. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure that several better shots of this building exist, of course, but the picture was made under the rain, a meteorological phenomenon very common in Lleida. Rain and fog it's a hallmark of this town. --Enfo (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is many dark pictures of this building looking almost the same ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). In those pictures the details are unclear, which doesn't make all of them educationally important. I think at least part of them could be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- All of these "dark" pictures show mostly the walls, and incidentally the bell tower, that rises behind it. These walls are a cultural heritage monument. I don't know why they must be removed. --Enfo (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is many dark pictures of this building looking almost the same ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). In those pictures the details are unclear, which doesn't make all of them educationally important. I think at least part of them could be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a good image, but just about useable MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Several better shots of this building exist. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This one would be a good reason not to nominate this image as valued image or quality image, but it is not a reason to delete it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Not dark. Tm (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per above.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep --Isidre blanc (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a good image, but just about useable MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Several better shots of this building exist. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- This one would be a good reason not to nominate this image as valued image or quality image, but it is not a reason to delete it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Not very dark. Tm (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep --Isidre blanc (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a good image, but just about useable MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 19:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, promotional image, unused. James F. (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. And several better images of the same place have been uploaded. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unnecessary, poor additional photo of something already well-covered. James F. (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The picture is a bit blurred. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- yeah "a bit" blurred. But all is clear.--Quahadi Añtó 18:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Insufficiently bad to delete. James F. (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Very little exposed. (Better quality night shots of this bridge exist.) Kulmalukko (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please notice that we have only two images of the bridge at night with its lights turned off, and this is the only one of the bridge less illuminated than background. It's probably not a great image, but I wouldn't say we have a better duplicate.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Insufficiently bad to delete. James F. (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Too blurred. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unnecessary, poor additional photo of something already well-covered. James F. (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No consent of depicted persons. Orphaned. Leyo 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep I guess this DR should be replaced with something such as {{Personality rights}} . Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC).
- The template is missing in hundreds of description pages of pictures of living people. However, it would not change the situation here IMHO. --Leyo 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- If privacy of the couple or right of the individual to be in the comfy (beach) suit is the only criteria, then IMO there are more sensitive galleries on Commons such as those under Category:Transparent_clothing or subcategories - remember not every woman is a public figure. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC).
- Keep I have tagged the image with {{Personality rights}} But really, the people depicted here are adults, not children, and they aren't nude or in a really embarrassing situation unless you live in a Muslim country. I would think that's its OK. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Question Does the nominator live in a type of country mentioned above? What's the impact on DR if this indeed is the situation? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC).
- The country of origin of the photograph (Uruguay) is relevant, not my country of residence. --Leyo 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Question Is there any legal problem in Uruguay? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC).
Kept: Complies with COM:PEOPLE in the absence of any known issues under local law MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TolkachevSS (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 19:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- These appear to be potentially useful. Is there any evidence that they have been uploaded for promotional reasons? A nice image of a fridge, and of named buildings, could well be educational. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- File:NordHolod.jpg is copyvio (EXIF: the author is Gleb Predko; compare also). Clarissy. 01:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- File:Zavod-nord.jpg & File:Diorit Comp.jpg do not have normal EXIF. See the images from the official website: [20], [21] (compare the shape and the position of the clouds). I think the uploader works in Diorit. Clarissy. 02:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
![[20]](http://www.diorit.ru/images/nord.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per evidence of ownership. MBisanz talk 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
A log text added last year by an IP indicating that this is not OU-Goverment work. Quote:
- The MCAS Miramar Logo was created by artists Kimberleigh and Paul Gavin in 1996. Paul Gavin begain doing USMC art work at MCAS Tustin in 1984 and began working with MCAS El Toro in 1989. He married Kimberleigh in 1993 and together they have supported the Marines and all Armed Forces since then including the then NAS Miramar in 1993 as well. (See www.gavinarts.com) When the BRAC decided the Marines would be moving from both MCAS Tustin and MCAS El Toro to NAS Miramar and the Navy would be split amongst NAS Fallon, CA, NAS Ocean at Virginia Beach, VA and NAS Lemoore, CA, the Gavins were asked by Col Jimmy Cranford, USMC and LtCol Ed Downum, USMC to design the soon to be MCAS Miramar logo in 1996 and together came to the final design. The Eagle, Globe and Anchor, the banner and the Corsair are from the original MCAS Miramar logo from 1949. The color Blue represents the Sea, the light blue the sky and the green the land and the lightning bolts the striking power of the USMC from all three. The coast line of San Diego harbor is represented in the section at bottom. Because no specific contractor could be represented in an official logo, the aircraft are close to the Sikorsky CH-53E's and MD F-18's then used by the Marines - but not exactly. The lighting bolts are also close to the similar curved bolts used by the San Diego Chargers - based in the Jack Murphy stadium near the base. The Gavins are also the creators of the world's largest Eagle Globe and Anchor painted on the Bob Hope Theater at MCAS Miramar that was conceived by then MCAS Director Richard Soule. The Gavins continue their work for MCAS Miramar at the annual MCAS Miramar Air Show and at military events across the country including JB Andrews, MD. LtCol Downum continues after retirement as the Direcor of the MCAS Miramar Air Show, the largest military air show in the United States.
JuTa 09:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Info The logo appears on the Web site of the base, http://www.miramar.usmc.mil/index.html , which surprisingly has a notice "© USMC MCAS MIRAMAR. All Rights Reserved". Rybec (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: on the basis of the facts as stated. Can be re-discussed if evidence appears to challenge them. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sensitive military facility. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. odder (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Image description page contains an additional restriction that voids the license: "Utilisation Libre sur Wikipedia et pour tous les contenus dépendant de la Wikimedia Foundation" This essentially means Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects may use the file freely. However, Commons requires a license that allows use by anyone, not restricted to wikimedia projects/wikipedia! rtc (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Keep Sorry, the licence is valid, we can use it on others sites with the same license.-- Bertrand GRONDIN
→ (Talk) 16:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, provided that User:Qvsqvs is said photographer S. RIMBAUD, he added GFDL and cc-by-sa-all licenses as well as the above mentioned statement already at upload [22]. If we take the license at face value, the seemingly restrictive statement is void. What might be more interesting, how sure we can be about the identity of uploader and photographer? --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The real reason og the deletion of the file : The DCRI wants to delete all pages and files this military base. See by example : fr:n:La DCRI menace un administrateur de Wikipédia pour supprimer un article.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (Talk) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The nominating user is not from France. --Túrelio (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not inpute motives on the nominator. rtc is a known user on Wikimedia Commons, I hardly believe he is a DCRI operative acting in disguise. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but let me make transparent my actual motive: It is to improve Commons licensing quality. this is just one deletion request among many similar I have done. For example, after many years of challenging Ubisoft licensing for thousands of screenshots, my conjecture that said licensing was simply bogus turned out to be correct and all screenshots were deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3). My deletion requests are often controversial because users want primarily pictures, not clean licenses, and sometimes community votes against my deletion requests. But I think what I do has purpose and is good for commons. I have been alleged to be a member of many organizations, but this is not true. Someone has to do the job if commons wants to take free licensing serious! --rtc (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- The real reason og the deletion of the file : The DCRI wants to delete all pages and files this military base. See by example : fr:n:La DCRI menace un administrateur de Wikipédia pour supprimer un article.-- Bertrand GRONDIN
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Base_militaire_de_Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg&oldid=24954241){kind=link}
- Keep, changing the licence is not a reason to delete a picture. 93.20.33.62 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC).
- Keep The French text is not a restriction of the CC license, but the CC license an enlargement of the French text. --Cqdx (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Either way, there is a contradiction, and we cannot accept images with contradictory licensing. "If, ... for any ... reason ... conditions are imposed on you ... that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under [the] License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the [work] at all. ... This ... is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of [the] License"[23] (my emphasis; this may not be verbatim in the licenses used here, but it that applies to any strong copyleft license). Hence, I'm sorry to say, but the license is null and void. We cannot make an exemption just because it is a picture used prominently in a high profile Wikipedia article. --rtc (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand you are contesting {{cc-by-sa-all}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}} templates. Discuss that with sysops and commons communauty.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (Talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not contesting templates, but I am contesting the validity of the licensing of this specific picture. It is clear to me that the uploader intended to allow use on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects only. It is actually a pretty frequent misconception that you can do this, and most people don't quite understand what CC and GFDL really mean. They just see them in the upload menu and because they don't understand, they add some words to make clear what they want. And from these words it is clear what they want is in conflict with said licenses. Hence, these pictures have not bee licensed properly and need to be deleted. You have the option to get the uploader to remove his restriction, and you have the option to make a new photo and upload it with proper licensing --rtc (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand you are contesting {{cc-by-sa-all}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}} templates. Discuss that with sysops and commons communauty.-- Bertrand GRONDIN
- Either way, there is a contradiction, and we cannot accept images with contradictory licensing. "If, ... for any ... reason ... conditions are imposed on you ... that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under [the] License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the [work] at all. ... This ... is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of [the] License"[23] (my emphasis; this may not be verbatim in the licenses used here, but it that applies to any strong copyleft license). Hence, I'm sorry to say, but the license is null and void. We cannot make an exemption just because it is a picture used prominently in a high profile Wikipedia article. --rtc (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Cqdx. --Pic-Sou (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Specious deletion arguments. Croquant (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It was tagged with the proper licence tags at upload time. The two licences GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5 and the wording means the novice uploaded wanted to make sure these pictures would be used on Wikimedia projects and was prepared to abide by our licensing requirements. Bouchecl (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's be honest! The uploader obviously intended to permit use of these images only on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. The conflicting statement makes his/her intensions crystal clear. These are really specious keep arguments. --rtc (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- “Let's be honest”? Is it a way to write that all users who vote 'Keep' are not honest? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you take my argument serious enough, and just want to keep the image with a specious argument. --rtc (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- «(c) S. RIMBAUD . Utilisation Libre sur Wikipedia et pour tous les contenus dépendant de la Wikimedia Foundation.» can be translated in English by the following "(c) S. RIMBAUD. Free use on Wikipedia and for all contents related to the Wikimedia Foundation". I don't see any further restrictions here, quite the contrary. Free use on WP and WMF platforms is even less restrictive than the provisions of the CC-BY-SA licence (credit, share alike). Bouchecl (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Then you have the same misunderstanding as the user, because GFDL and CC-BY-SA do NOT restrict use to wikipedia and WMF platforms. --rtc (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that. I'm saying it can be argued the photographer gave the WMF more rights than what is normally done when you upload a picture under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA comes with some built-in restrictions regarding credit and sharing. He gave free use to the WMF and CC-BY-SA/GFDL to anyone not related to the Foundation, so there is no problem here. Bouchecl (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- given enough creativitiy, it can be argued that a four-legged Arcturian megadonkey actually has no legs. I am sorry, but the picture has to be deleted, if the user doesn't agree to remove the conflicting statement. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that. I'm saying it can be argued the photographer gave the WMF more rights than what is normally done when you upload a picture under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA comes with some built-in restrictions regarding credit and sharing. He gave free use to the WMF and CC-BY-SA/GFDL to anyone not related to the Foundation, so there is no problem here. Bouchecl (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Then you have the same misunderstanding as the user, because GFDL and CC-BY-SA do NOT restrict use to wikipedia and WMF platforms. --rtc (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- “Let's be honest”? Is it a way to write that all users who vote 'Keep' are not honest? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's be honest! The uploader obviously intended to permit use of these images only on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. The conflicting statement makes his/her intensions crystal clear. These are really specious keep arguments. --rtc (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Licence is valid. Dual licensing is quite common in Free software, not to mention dual licensing is not necessary done with compatible licenses. Accessoirement, si cette demande émanait d'une autorité, je lui suggèrerai d'employer des voies légales avant que de saigner à blanc la réputation des institutions du minstère de l'intérieur. Vatekor (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep : the permission tag shows the words 'Utilisation Libre sur Wikipedia et pour tous les contenus dépendant de la Wikimedia Foundation.' and then two valid licence tags for GFDL and all CC-BY-SA. It is not right to say that the sentence means that the image can be used only on Wikimedia projects. If it was uploader's will, he would have written something as 'Utilisation uniquement (or: seulement) sur les projets hébergés par Wikimedia Foundation'. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- the permission tag shows the words 'Utilisation Libre sur Wikipedia et pour tous les contenus dépendant de la Wikimedia Foundation' If it was the uploader's will that the pictures be used outside of wikipedia and WMF projects, he would not have written the contrary. Would you say to your child "feel free to take 3 EUR from my briefcase" when you intend to say "feel free to take all money from my briefcase"? Would you accept your child to take all the money from your briefcase with the argument "but you did not say I may take only 3 EUR from the briefcase"? clearly not. --rtc (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The licence is valid. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (Conserver) La soit-disant restriction dit: Usage libre pour Wikipedia. Elle ne dit pas usage libre uniquement sur Wikipedia. De plus, l'auteur a ajouté 2 autres licences qui permettent explicitement l'usage libre de la photo. Il n' y a donc pas de discussion. Short translation into English: the wording is unambiguous and I agree with above comments. Malosse (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- See above, this line of argument is just far off. There is just no point in granting an additional "free use for WP/WMF projects". The only reasonable way to read this statement is as a statement of intention to have this picture used on WP/WMF project only. New users often do this because the menu doesn't offer them such a restrictive choice (after all, the philosophy of free licensing is not common knowledge and would sound far off to many) and then such uploaders try to fix it by stating their intention in words that use shall be restricted to WMF projects. --rtc (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, do not simply add "Keeps" (or "Deletes") without any further reasoning. This is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I believe there are two possible interprations here: either it is akind a dual license ; or it is licensed under some other entity « CC-BY-SA + additional clause ». Previous Commons deletion requests − Commons:Deletion requests/License "adding my name directly under the photo" & Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark have concluded that in such a situation the latter interpretation is correct, and that the additional clause conflates with the license. I then believe the second question is whether the additional clause is already covered with the CC-BY-SA license. Maloss is right that it says « Free usage on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects », without exclusivity. This means the wording supports a Keep ; that said, in the spirit, I have a hard time believing this was the actual intent of the uploader − this is playing on words too far IMO. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutral In this two cases, the additionnal clauses were explicite with verbs : « add » and « do(n't) ». Here it's just a noun : « utilisation » (with the adjective « free » !), it's far less explicite. We can't be sure if the author really intend to add a restriction or not. Plus, in the first case, the custom license template has been deleted but not the files themself. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Unclear permission. The photographer should provide enlightenment.O2 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
###### OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER ######
I, S. RIMBAUD, give my authorization for any use of this picture, which has been used by many media (newspapers, televisions) since the 5th April 2013. The initial protection was set up in order to prevent from an unauthorized use of the picture on other websites.
Now, recognizing that all the world media reused this picture, the authorization is granted to anyone to reuse that material for any matter, on Wikipedia or on any website, provided that the name of the photographer ("S. RIMBAUD") will be mentioned. I am the real photographer and I can prove it if needed (I've got some other photos about that location and its surroundings which I took during the walk to the top of the mountain Pierre-Sur-Haute.
Thanks in advance to the contributor(s) that could correct the possible language mistakes in this authorization text. Stop the debate. You can reuse this picture freely.
9th April 2013, S. RIMBAUD
- Thank you for taking care of the issue. However, you are posting this from the account User:Zebulloon, while the picture was uploaded by User:Qvsqvs. Hence, technically, it is not clear that you really are the uploader. In principle, anyone could make such a statement. Second, your statement suffers from similar unclarity, and we have to be very careful about this, because, as you say, and as I had supposed, "The initial protection was set up in order to prevent from an unauthorized use of the picture on other websites". What you say now does not make it explicit whether you are fine with modification and commercial use of the picture, even outside of media (for example, selling postcards with the picture on it). The best thing to do is to not to make any statements at all, but simply use the licensing templates, no additional comments or words of interpretation -- it's so easy! Log in as User:Qvsqvs, remove any additional statement about the licenses and keep only the templates. If you do not write any additional text, there can be no misunderstanding, while adding text inherently causes unclarity. Third, you should to consider talking to a lawyer, because "even when you are acting in good faith and doing good work, you are legally responsible for your activities", and not the wikimedia foundation (m:Legal and Community Advocacy/Statement on France). Note taking photographs of military complexes might be considered espionage and what you have done might thus have violated French criminal law, and given the nature of the case and the fact that the picture might well be the reason for authorities to go mad about this article, it is quite possible that some preliminary investigation by public prosecution is taking place against you. It was a good idea to use a one-upload-only account for uploading the picture, but perhaps not such a good one to add your name on the picture, even if that would have meant no credit for you. Also, you should be very careful about what you say, since anything might be used as evidence against you. By making statements such as "I've got some other photos about that location and its surroundings" you might incriminate yourself. Watch this 101 on such things: [24] --rtc (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think we can accept that the new licence is fine. Let's discuss the potential FoP issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Delete The architect hasn't been dead for 70 years. See COM:FOP#France. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support So far, the argument that makes the most sense - by far - one way or the other is Stefan4's. This of course concerns the photograph alone, not any article it's embedded in. Alphos (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)- Stefan4: You believe the buildings are not PD-ineligible (per COM:FOP#France)? Jean-Fred (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Stefan4, I think there is nothing copyrightable in this technical construction, especially in its appearance in this shot. However, this question might need the evaluation by someone experienced in case-law of France. --Túrelio (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good point but is there an architect ? It was probably just an engineer. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- As COM:FOP#France mentions, not all buildings are copyrighted in France. I see nothing here that could pass the French threshold of originality. These are functional buildings, designed according to technical reasons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, is someone here claiming that we can't upload pictures of buildings, because the architects might have a copyright on the building? That would make just about every photo taken in any city on Wikipedia a copyright violation. This entire argument smells of a politically motivated attempt at suppression to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of spreading conspiration theories bordering to personal attack, read Commons:CB#Buildings and COM:FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it's obvious what's going on here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, these buildings aren't, in any way, artistic works. They are functional buildings; they fail the most basic requirement for protection: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- What about this picture: [25]? It seems to violate the rights of multiple architects. I could find a dozen such photos in the space of a minute. Why is the Pierre-sur-Haute photo in particular coming under such scrutiny? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need for paranoia. On Commons we're usually this nit-picky for any picture, regardless of its amount of threat to national defence. Stefan4 presented a point; it was rebutted by others: business as usual. Regarding File:Défense-parvis-pano.jpg, I believe it falls into the French case law's traditional exception to copyright for urban landscapes, as mentioned in COM:FOP#France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seconding Jastrow here. Thucydides411, I’m sorry, but to paraphrase you, it’s obvious you are not really proficient in what is going on here. Stefan4 concerns are valid − though I do not agree with them, as I stated earlier − and he is perfectly right to raise these concerns here (this is precisely what this page is for!). Please do not see conspiracy theories here, there are really none. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- VIGNERON, an architectural work is protected regardless the title of the author. Keep in mind the first sentence of France CPI: « L'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit jouit sur cette oeuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d'un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous. ». There is no other condition that to produce an original work (œuvre de l'esprit) to gain protection. To have to justify of an architect title and not an engineer one would be such a condition. So if an engineer produces an original building, yes, the building will be protected. I guess you wanted to say something like “This building doesn't have an original aspect, and were intended from the start to be only functional ; I doubt an architect even take care of produce plans, this probably have been handled directly by an engineer.”, but to refer to person qualities to discriminate between like original and not original work is clumsy. --Dereckson (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dereckson : en France, la plupart du temps, ce type de chantier de construction n'est pas dirigé par une personne unique, mais par un staff réunissant les hommes de l'art (dont les ingénieurs) et les maîtres d'ouvrage (ici probablement des représentants des ministères concernés. De fait, un ingénieur n'aura le plus souvent aucun droit moral sur la construction, car ce n'est pa son projet, mais celui d'une cohorte de techniciens et de spécialistes. C'est là la grande différence avec un architecte qui signe un projet et souvent dirige le chantier de sa réalisation. Si un jour on a accès aux plans des antennes (que ce soit celle de TDF ou celles de l'armée), je mets ma main à couper qu'il n'y aura pas dessus une seule signature, hormis celle de la société maître d'oeuvre et de son représentant. Cdlt - Bzh-99 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Merci beaucoup pour cette précision, je comprends mieux le propos de VIGNERON maintenant. Je n'avais en effet pas vu cela sous cet angle.
- Ma lecture des articles 113-2 et 113-5 du CPI confirme également que l'«ingénieur n'aura le plus souvent aucun droit moral sur la construction» (patrimonial non plus d'ailleurs). Si un tel chantier devait en effet produire une œuvre originale, celle-ci sera aussi protégée par le droit d'auteur en tant qu'œuvre collective, et sauf convention stipulant le contraire, les droits reviennent bien à la société maître d'œuvre.
- « 113-2. Est dite de collaboration l'oeuvre à la création de laquelle ont concouru plusieurs personnes physiques.
- Est dite composite l'oeuvre nouvelle à laquelle est incorporée une oeuvre préexistante sans la collaboration de l'auteur de cette dernière.
- Est dite collective l'oeuvre créée sur l'initiative d'une personne physique ou morale qui l'édite, la publie et la divulgue sous sa direction et son nom et dans laquelle la contribution personnelle des divers auteurs participant à son élaboration se fond dans l'ensemble en vue duquel elle est conçue, sans qu'il soit possible d'attribuer à chacun d'eux un droit distinct sur l'ensemble réalisé.
- -
- 113-5. L'oeuvre collective est, sauf preuve contraire, la propriété de la personne physique ou morale sous le nom de laquelle elle est divulguée. » --Dereckson (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dereckson : en France, la plupart du temps, ce type de chantier de construction n'est pas dirigé par une personne unique, mais par un staff réunissant les hommes de l'art (dont les ingénieurs) et les maîtres d'ouvrage (ici probablement des représentants des ministères concernés. De fait, un ingénieur n'aura le plus souvent aucun droit moral sur la construction, car ce n'est pa son projet, mais celui d'une cohorte de techniciens et de spécialistes. C'est là la grande différence avec un architecte qui signe un projet et souvent dirige le chantier de sa réalisation. Si un jour on a accès aux plans des antennes (que ce soit celle de TDF ou celles de l'armée), je mets ma main à couper qu'il n'y aura pas dessus une seule signature, hormis celle de la société maître d'oeuvre et de son représentant. Cdlt - Bzh-99 (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- VIGNERON, an architectural work is protected regardless the title of the author. Keep in mind the first sentence of France CPI: « L'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit jouit sur cette oeuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d'un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous. ». There is no other condition that to produce an original work (œuvre de l'esprit) to gain protection. To have to justify of an architect title and not an engineer one would be such a condition. So if an engineer produces an original building, yes, the building will be protected. I guess you wanted to say something like “This building doesn't have an original aspect, and were intended from the start to be only functional ; I doubt an architect even take care of produce plans, this probably have been handled directly by an engineer.”, but to refer to person qualities to discriminate between like original and not original work is clumsy. --Dereckson (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seconding Jastrow here. Thucydides411, I’m sorry, but to paraphrase you, it’s obvious you are not really proficient in what is going on here. Stefan4 concerns are valid − though I do not agree with them, as I stated earlier − and he is perfectly right to raise these concerns here (this is precisely what this page is for!). Please do not see conspiracy theories here, there are really none. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need for paranoia. On Commons we're usually this nit-picky for any picture, regardless of its amount of threat to national defence. Stefan4 presented a point; it was rebutted by others: business as usual. Regarding File:Défense-parvis-pano.jpg, I believe it falls into the French case law's traditional exception to copyright for urban landscapes, as mentioned in COM:FOP#France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Instead of spreading conspiration theories bordering to personal attack, read Commons:CB#Buildings and COM:FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, is someone here claiming that we can't upload pictures of buildings, because the architects might have a copyright on the building? That would make just about every photo taken in any city on Wikipedia a copyright violation. This entire argument smells of a politically motivated attempt at suppression to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- As COM:FOP#France mentions, not all buildings are copyrighted in France. I see nothing here that could pass the French threshold of originality. These are functional buildings, designed according to technical reasons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good point but is there an architect ? It was probably just an engineer. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Stefan4, I think there is nothing copyrightable in this technical construction, especially in its appearance in this shot. However, this question might need the evaluation by someone experienced in case-law of France. --Túrelio (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D%C3%A9fense-parvis-pano.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The TV antenna is an industrial work, without autor's rights. There are a lot a these TV antenna in France. Military devices are de minimis in this picture.
- It's the third request, it's quite now. - Bzh-99 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. The FOP-question has come up within the 2nd nomination, as is visible from the comment-dates. --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep with proviso The photo itself is a panoramic photo and anything that might be copyrightable is clearly de minimis. However, I would be more comfortable if we get the author to complete COM:OTRS using one of our standard templates, so that there is no question that they are providing the photo under an applicable licence, and that they understand this is giving anyone permission to use the photo for any purpose, whether that be on or off WMF projects. russavia (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: It seems that the deletion rationale "copyright of architect" does not hold water as the depicted construction is missing originality and copyrightability. However, to be absolutely sure about the photographer's rights, as already suggested in the closed 1st part of this DR, it would be preferable to offer the uploader/photographer a secure OTRS-channel to have his permission recorded without any risk of disclosure of his personal data. In addition, for reasons of safety (and a bit paranoia) I would recommend Keep-closure performed by an admin who is not based in Europe. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I learned about FOP restrictions after several years of contributing to the commons. I had uploaded several dozen street scene images from Bucharest. A couple of them were challenged. It was a very unpleasant surprise. But if it is our policy to honor the copyright laws of the countries where images were from, and countries IP laws classify building design as protected, we are obliged to take their restrictions seriously.
I suspect arguments that arguments that some buildings are too simple for their design to qualify for copyright protection in those countries are not tenable. I suspect, that in those countries even the design of a dog-house, or a garden shed, requires the designer to make decisions that pass the bar for originality and creativity. A dog house or garden shed, where the wrong design decisions are made, will fall over.
Famous music industry types are supposed to be given the advice to decline to listen to any unsolicited demo tapes, to protect themselves from being sued by people who claim the famous artist's next work ripped off some element of the work on the demo tape. Even the work of the worst song-writer in history will enjoy copyright protection.
Some have argued that this image contains other elements, so the military complex is de minimus. If that were true how much of an image has to show a building, or building complex, before it is no longer de minimus? Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Each country has its own threshold of originality. French criteria for buildings are explained at Commons:FOP#France. Basically, a minimum amount of creativity is required. If your design's only goal is your shed not to fall over, it will be deemed to be a functional, non-copyrightable design. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, I read Commons:FOP#France, so far as I could because I couldn't understand the French passages. It seems to me whoever drafted that law knew nothing about the originality and creativity required to make wise technical design decisions. So, hasn't anyone ever challenged this naive interpretation of creativity in the French judicial system? Please don't tell me this naive interpretation of creativity survived a challenge. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're getting this wrong. Technical ingenuity is a matter for patents. Artistic (for want of a better word) creativity is a matter for copyright. That's all there is to it. I'm not sure exactly who could challenge the *law*. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not convinced. As per Feist v. Rural isn't the spark of creativity required quite low? Is your position that those with genuine taste have to consider something a genuine work of art, before whatever differentiates it from similar works qualifies for copyright protection? I made the point that even the worst garage band's worst song qualifies for copyright protection. You ignored that point. Please don't ignore it, please address it. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're mixing different concepts. Originality doesn't mean a work is good: it means it's original. Under French law copyright is granted to "works of the mind" regardless of their merit, so a terrible song or an ugly painting would indeed be protected. It still has nothing to do with technical ingenuity. In this specific case, I don't mean that the buildings aren't protected because they're ugly—I mean they aren't protected because they are purely functional. No effort has been made to express the architect or engineer's own personality. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- We agree terrible paintings and songs are protected by copyright. I find your suggestion that there is no originality and creativity in "purely functional" devices unconvincing.
- You're mixing different concepts. Originality doesn't mean a work is good: it means it's original. Under French law copyright is granted to "works of the mind" regardless of their merit, so a terrible song or an ugly painting would indeed be protected. It still has nothing to do with technical ingenuity. In this specific case, I don't mean that the buildings aren't protected because they're ugly—I mean they aren't protected because they are purely functional. No effort has been made to express the architect or engineer's own personality. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not convinced. As per Feist v. Rural isn't the spark of creativity required quite low? Is your position that those with genuine taste have to consider something a genuine work of art, before whatever differentiates it from similar works qualifies for copyright protection? I made the point that even the worst garage band's worst song qualifies for copyright protection. You ignored that point. Please don't ignore it, please address it. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're getting this wrong. Technical ingenuity is a matter for patents. Artistic (for want of a better word) creativity is a matter for copyright. That's all there is to it. I'm not sure exactly who could challenge the *law*. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, I read Commons:FOP#France, so far as I could because I couldn't understand the French passages. It seems to me whoever drafted that law knew nothing about the originality and creativity required to make wise technical design decisions. So, hasn't anyone ever challenged this naive interpretation of creativity in the French judicial system? Please don't tell me this naive interpretation of creativity survived a challenge. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Each country has its own threshold of originality. French criteria for buildings are explained at Commons:FOP#France. Basically, a minimum amount of creativity is required. If your design's only goal is your shed not to fall over, it will be deemed to be a functional, non-copyrightable design. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Consider the American Space Shuttle and the Soviet Space Shuttle Buran. They looked so similar I think many people think the Soviet spaceplane was a copy of the American. But it wasn't a copy. Significantly different design choices were made. The Buran's boosters were liquid fueled, not solid fueled -- so its boosters wouldn't have exploded in the same way.
- I used to be a computer programmer. I replaced another programmer who had spent six months on a program that just wasn't working. I looked at his version, and decided not to try to fix it, but rather to start over, from scratch. When I showed my version to the person who requested the program, she asked how to work around certain bugs the previous version had. Those bugs were side effects of the bad design choices the previous guy made. No work around was necessary in my version as they simply couldn't occur. I believe the different design choices I made were examples of creativity and originality. I believe if one hundred programmers had independently written versions of that program the design choices they made would be different in ways that showed enough creativity and originality to qualify for IP right protection, even if all the programs were functionally equivalent.
- On a personal level I would like to tell the French security officials to get stuffed. Bullying the French wikipedian was both unforgivable and a waste of time. But this discussion should be based on policy, noth what we would like. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not actually my own suggestion: it's the established French case law. What we have to debate here is whether the station's design is purely functional, in which case it's not copyrighted, or the design shows personal creativity (in the copyright sense), in which case it's copyrighted. Re: the space shuttle, if the answer to "Why did you design the shuttle this way?" is "So it doesn't have the same o-ring issue as Challenger", it's a functional choice. It can't be protected according to French case law, but you may be able to register the design, according to the law of designs and models. If the answer is along the lines of "So it evokes the shape of a bay leaf and it symbolizes both symmetry and asymmetry and blah blah blah", it's a personal choice expressing the personality of the designer, and it's copyrighted (even if the design is crap). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Some people seem to have argued that a sneaky way around the intellectual property protections architects and engineers in some countries would be for wily photographers in France to simply publish their images outside of France. If that is all it took, first publishing an image on Flickr, or even on a WMF projects, with servers in the United States, would e sufficient to ignore the special protections of that country. Is this valid legal reasoning? Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Given it violates our licensing policy, fairly irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that is what I would have thought -- until I read this comment, from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Response to French censorship by User:Túrelio, who wrote: "The still ongoing DR for File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, was filed by an experienced user outside of the French jurisdiction."
When I read that it seemed to me that Túrelio was implying that an image from France, that would be non-compliant if published in France, could become compliant if it was published "outside of the French jurisdiction". So, did I read this wrong? Or maybe this is what Túrelio meant, but they are incorrect? Geo Swan (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that is what I would have thought -- until I read this comment, from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Response to French censorship by User:Túrelio, who wrote: "The still ongoing DR for File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg, was filed by an experienced user outside of the French jurisdiction."
- Given it violates our licensing policy, fairly irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, my comment was simply directed at the conspiracy theories in this discussion suggesting that User:rtc was (sort of) acting on behalf of the DCRI. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The french Jurisprudence regarding FOP has been quite constant about this for more than 40 years, the building needs to have a certain artistic character (CA Riom, 1966) to be copyrighted (to be opposed to purely functional designed) which is the case here as it was very well explained by Jastrow. --PierreSelim (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)