Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/04/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Image available elsewhere on the web, including here Ytoyoda (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 15:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
not in use Rajni bhuria (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. INeverCry 15:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - all other uploads from this user have been copyvios INeverCry 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had uploaded the orginal photo with the date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedictdilton (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader has now uploaded the image in somewhat higher resolution. It yielded no hit in a Google-images-per-pattern search. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like he just uploaded a re-sized (160%) version of the original. The rest of his uploads have been deleted as copyvios, so how do we trust him with this tiny, no-EXIF file? As it is, it should probably be deleted per PRP. INeverCry 15:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hope this photo is not violating any copyright, I am new to wiki and was not sure what I was doing will be more careful in the future. It will be a great help you can if you can remove the nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedictdilton (talk • contribs) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Did you actually physically take the photo yourself? What kind of camera or camera phone did you use? Do you have a higher resolution copy, preferably with EXIF? INeverCry 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No I don't take this photo it was taken in a photo studio as a passport size photo. But I am the only one who is having the copy of this photo even the person in the photo is not going to challenge it.
- The studio photographer is the copyright holder unless it has been transferred in writing to someone else. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle does not recognize “The copyright owner will not mind ... that we have disseminated his/her work.” --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In that case you can delete this photo I was not aware of it.
- Commons:Copyright_rules#Simple_checklist may be helpful to you in the future. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I will take detailed note. For the time being you can delete this photo. I don't want my account to get banned.
Deleted, at request of the uploader. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Japan. Derivative work of copyrighted advertisement artwork. Vantey (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nom and as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
We have this in SVG. File:Lauburu.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no source, no license JuTa 06:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Plain text is not in com:scope McZusatz (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly out of scope MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this file is CC-BY-NC 1.244.108.19 16:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a free licence on Flickr MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that Frederic Comí licensed this image freely. Leoboudv (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
En Flickr la fotografía tiene licencia Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/telediariofs/8668220592/ y he confirmado personalmente la licencia libre con el autor Frederic Comí Solicito restitución
This photograph is licensed Flickr and Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/telediariofs/8668220592/ and I have personally confirmed the free license with the author Frederic Comí
--mboix (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Mboix
imho not 'own work', see (nearly hidden) watermark, Roland 00:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio it is. Its published in 2011 over here. And this link says that its published in a magazine "Jyotish Guru" in August 2011 edition. Have tagged it for copyvio now. The user has uploaded many copyvio images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP, out of scope, if not used by now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP, out of scope, if not used by now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We could use an image for en:Wikipedia:Léo_Gago but this is clearly cropped from the image on this page so almost certainly a copyvio.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP, out of scope, if not used by now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No enciclopédico. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal picture, no clear educational purpose. -Pete F (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
too blurry to make out any relevant details. presumably a "bis lacta" bar unwrapped, no way to confirm, poor quality Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
non encyclopedic content, advertising UAwiki (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
there is no evidence of a model named "Habben Michael" existing; the wikipedia article is a hoax, and therefore the photos (uploaded by the same person who wrote the article) are not only of unknown identity, they're of unknown provenance. DS (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Habben Michael Marc Hibbert 2013 21266.jpg, File:Habben Michael, Hong Kong - Vogue, Bell and Ross, 002.jpg, File:Habben Michael, Hong Kong - Vogue, Bell and Ross, 001.jpg, File:Habben Michael, Hong Kong Vogue, 2009.jpg, and File:Habben Michael, Hong Kong - Vogue, Shengxin Zamuo, 001.jpg. DS (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
monument erected in 1966, no FOP in Romania Cezarika1 (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
monument erected in 1966, no FOP in Romania Cezarika1 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
monument erected in 1966, no FOP in Romania Cezarika1 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
monument erected in 1966, no FOP in Romania Cezarika1 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Likely a copyright violation or the uploader did not have permission to upload it. The uploader's talk page is littered with many copyvio deletion notices. Also see this page which has several of the files I reported for copyright violations.
I'm also including in this discussion:
Mikemoral♪♫ 07:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also including:
Mikemoral♪♫ 07:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also the following which seem to be duplicates of the above.
Mikemoral♪♫ 03:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, no educational value Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
DJ spam. no description Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is blurred, better image of the same subject is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Hattiesburg, Mississippi- In Picture- Forrest General Hospital, University OF Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg Clinic- 2013-04-21 01-16.jpg
[edit]
A previously published photograph. The source says Copyrighted 2011 although it might be from other even earlier source also. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
COM:PS. Depicts nothing. A.Savin 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Picture shows lit waves, and two blurry human figures at great distance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not the place to mantain a personal curriculum. Non notable personal image with curriculum like info Garrondo (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"Tumblr" in file name and lack of useful image description indicate copyvio. Ytoyoda (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from Tumblr - this image has been available here and elsewhere online. Ytoyoda (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Likely stolen from here. Ytoyoda (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Likely stolen from here. Ytoyoda (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Portrait photograph that must be at least 30 or 40 years old, going by the biographical dates of the subject; obviously not an original shot but a photograph from a print. Highly unlikely to be uploader's own work as claimed. Previously deleted on en-wp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I dont think this can be a pre 1960 photo as the license requires. JuTa 09:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dark, invisible penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. This is a really terrible photo and not educational. Much better photos of male reproductive organs already exist on the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The text on this plaque is certainly sufficient for a copyright. It cannot have been written before 1969, so the copyright has not expired. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Italy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
no indication of permission McZusatz (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what the threshold of originality is in Sri Lanka, but if this is the actual logo for the airport, it is presumably copyrighted and thus even if this particular image is user-created, it is still a derivative work of the copyrighted logo. UserB (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is not the copyright holder, rather obviously. The account needs to be indeffed as well. Evanh2008 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely NOT own work. It might be an official White-House-photo, but uploader has to prove that. So far, it is a derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
personal images without any relevance, used as personal hosting, useless for educational purposes L736E (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
personal image of not-relevant people, upload as pure hosting, useless for educational purposes L736E (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
imho not 'own work' as well not in use, no 'educational' use, i.e. "out of scope", Roland 16:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 118.68.198.197 as no source (no source since) and no license. I recovered the original license. I guess the IP doubts its the work of the original uploader. JuTa 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: previously published e.g. here (September 2010) –moogsi (blah) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
unused private pic Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
unused private wallpaper experiment, no educational value Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
unused private pic Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons doesn't collect homework Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
private picture Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
private picture Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
private picture Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
private picture Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
logo spam, not in use. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I got mixed up - uploaded this by mistake - later uploaded the correct file with different name.
This file does NOT link to any articles. @Efrat (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with original uploader's request to delete this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Band promo image, single upload by this user. Smells copyvio, should be confirmed via OTRS or deleted Denniss (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a probably still copyrighted Soviet sculpture. No FoP in Russia. A.Savin 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
easily replaceable by tex markup (unused now that I [https://it.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Matematica_per_le_superiori/Numeri_razionali&diff=243272&oldid=242872 replaced its one use that way). DMacks (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images#91156503.40N00 Martin451 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Remove nomination for discussion, tagged as speedy.Martin451 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and PNG format. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate copy of File:Sarbananda Sonowal Assam.jpg Bishnu_Saikia (Talk) 19:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; low-res, bad quality, non-notable person, unusable; likely an attack-image Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and PNG format. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio or out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously a copyright violation - AP attribution 188.104.122.1 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
2012 building in Italy. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
2008 building in Italy (it:Palazzo Bonaccorso). In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
1958 building in Italy (see it:Grattacieli di Bologna). In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an almost finished building in Italy. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Image online at various porn sites[1]. PD rationale is nonsense. Rrburke (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Artwork in private collection by Toon Dupuis (1877-1937), is protected by copyright. Ronn (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are incorrect Van Aldenhaag (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- In what way? This sculpture is part of a private collection. Maybe you own it, that doesn't mean you also own the copyright. Ronn (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation, painter Piet van der Hem died in 1961 Ronn (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. Van Aldenhaag (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- How? Van der Hem died in 1961, didn't he? Maybe you own the painting, that doesn't mean you also own the copyright. Ronn (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would you assume I do not have the copyright. Van Aldenhaag (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't turn this around, please. You are the one who need to proof you own the copyright. You uploaded this picture as your own work, that's certainly not right. Work of Van der Hem is not in the public domain. Ronn (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 2D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The depicted building was created by architect Jean Renaudie, who died in 1981 − The building is protected until 2052 (70 years pma). This photograph is a derivative work of this building. As there is no freedom of panorama in France (exception for works in public places), this file cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, unless the building is deemed ineligible for copyright protection (cf. COM:TOO) − I’ll let this deletion request decide of that. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: France has no Freedom of panorama, the building is still copyrighted until 2052. PierreSelim (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan. Derivative work of copyrighted map. Vantey (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Errato caricamento Lanorte (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with original uploader's request to delete this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request –moogsi (blah) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The image is a UK originating image (http://www.aeroprints.com/) and would meet the TOO under UK law. russavia (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to make a permit by OTRS. --ze-dan (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: File can be restored if OTRS is received 99of9 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Personnal image, unused, out of scope SamuelFreli (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Watermarked indicates this is a commericial image. Eeekster (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
do not upload a png if a svg does exist for years Antemister (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
VERY SURPRISED! HONESTLY, I DID NOT UPLOAD THIS "FILE:CHINESE NATIONALIST PARTY FLAG. TAIWAN.PNG" ...SOMEONE USED MY 'NICK NAME" AND DID SOMETHING WITHOUT MY CONSENT! IT UPSET ME DEFINITELY!
Deleted: per nom and uploader 99of9 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The description of this photo says "Indian earrings" but doesn't specifically say it was taken in India. It appears to have been taken in a jewelry shop so I think it would be okay under FOP#India, if it was taken in India. Rybec (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I notice that the same contributor uploaded File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-31892986316233873.jpg; the description says it was taken in Bombay (Mumbai). Rybec (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Rybec-take-2 ... uploader seems to be in India 99of9 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This photo shows a modern sculpture. FOP#Italy says there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The sculpture does appear to be in the style of Michelangelo Barbieri, but I didn't find anything about it on his site. I'm not certain that the uploader is Michelangelo Barbieri. Rybec (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- This photo has no Tineye hits. It was the contributor's only upload. Rybec (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Rybec 99of9 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. This is a still from a film which is in the public domain. This image, however, shows a "censored" version of a contemporary commercial work which is not known to be in the public domain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep, nominator admits film itself is in the public domain, and yet fails to note whether and where this image still is copyrighted. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know if the image is still under copyright, which is why this is a probable copyvio rather than an obvious one. This should be deleted on a precautionary basis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, however I'd have to say I also agree with the analysis by Sinnamon (talk · contribs), below. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're smarter than that, Cirt. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, however I'd have to say I also agree with the analysis by Sinnamon (talk · contribs), below. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know if the image is still under copyright, which is why this is a probable copyvio rather than an obvious one. This should be deleted on a precautionary basis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the point is, that while the film may be pd, the photograph that is being shown in the film may not be PD.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- However, the opinion of the WM foundation is that a reproduction of a 2D work that is in public domain is also in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. There is no reason to assume that the 2D work in question is in the public domain. I believe it is an image from a contemporary commercial magazine. If this were a Playboy centerfold, for example, there would be no debate that this is not a public domain work. That image may well be an image taken from Playboy, despite the spurious labelling of it as a "lesbian" image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- However, the opinion of the WM foundation is that a reproduction of a 2D work that is in public domain is also in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Whether the film itself is PD or not seems pretty much irrelevant. What matters is whether the image depicted is in the PD or not. And given the material, I would imagine that is next to impossible to find out. What's Commons' standard way of dealing with images of unknown authorship and origin that are likely, but not necessarily in the Public Domain? --Conti|✉ 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can a still from a public domain film be copyrighted? I think that even in UK with its very low threshold of originality requirements wouldn't give you a copyright just for adding a rectangle to a single frame. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The film is not copyrighted, but what is shown in that still from the frame is something that was almost certainly copyrighted at the time and is likely to be under copyright now. Without meaning to sound facetious, what part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, I think I am beginning to see what you are saying. You believe that the public domain film has used a copyrighted work, and as such it was originally a derivative? Is that what you mean? If so you should just say that, and then we need to examine that claim. The image is good and very useful, but of course if the particular frame happens to be a derivative work of a copyrighted material then we should probably delete... unfortunate as it may be. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- You should probably amend your "vote" now that you understand what you are voting on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, you can try to insult me, but it won't get any emotional outburst. I understand that I am voting on a still frame from a public domain film which has been around for almost 50 years now. It is a very well known film and is widely distributed. COM:PRP states that we don't keep the files because "we can get away with it", but it doesn't state that we should see copyright where the evidence points to its nonexistence. Your claim that a frame from a popular 48 year-old public domain film is a copyvio can be compared to the claims made by people who think that there can be patent challenges against Theora or Ogg. After all this time there is still a chance of such thing occurring, but please calm down and m:Avoid copyright paranoia. So I do want to change my vote from Keep on the grounds that it's a DR from a pd film to Keep since it's a DR from a 48 year-old popular pd film. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to be insulting and I'm sorry if it came across that way. This has absolutely nothing to do with patent challenges, which are an entirely different legal area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about coming across insulting or anything, It's not easy to get through my skin. Btw, I did not say that there is anything patent related about this image, only that the logic used is the same. 48 years of distribution under public domain is evidence enough that it is in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again, not meaning to be insulting, that the film is now in the public domain does not in any way imply that the images in question are in the public domain, no matter how long that situation has existed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about coming across insulting or anything, It's not easy to get through my skin. Btw, I did not say that there is anything patent related about this image, only that the logic used is the same. 48 years of distribution under public domain is evidence enough that it is in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to be insulting and I'm sorry if it came across that way. This has absolutely nothing to do with patent challenges, which are an entirely different legal area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, you can try to insult me, but it won't get any emotional outburst. I understand that I am voting on a still frame from a public domain film which has been around for almost 50 years now. It is a very well known film and is widely distributed. COM:PRP states that we don't keep the files because "we can get away with it", but it doesn't state that we should see copyright where the evidence points to its nonexistence. Your claim that a frame from a popular 48 year-old public domain film is a copyvio can be compared to the claims made by people who think that there can be patent challenges against Theora or Ogg. After all this time there is still a chance of such thing occurring, but please calm down and m:Avoid copyright paranoia. So I do want to change my vote from Keep on the grounds that it's a DR from a pd film to
- You should probably amend your "vote" now that you understand what you are voting on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, I think I am beginning to see what you are saying. You believe that the public domain film has used a copyrighted work, and as such it was originally a derivative? Is that what you mean? If so you should just say that, and then we need to examine that claim. The image is good and very useful, but of course if the particular frame happens to be a derivative work of a copyrighted material then we should probably delete... unfortunate as it may be. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- The film is not copyrighted, but what is shown in that still from the frame is something that was almost certainly copyrighted at the time and is likely to be under copyright now. Without meaning to sound facetious, what part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can a still from a public domain film be copyrighted? I think that even in UK with its very low threshold of originality requirements wouldn't give you a copyright just for adding a rectangle to a single frame. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Whilst the film itself might be in the public domain, such works can include elements which are still under copyright. Unless the authorship of the photograph used in the film can be ascertained, and unless it can be determined whether that image is in the public domain, we apply COM:PRP on this project. russavia (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you realise that COM:PRP is talking about a completely different case and nobody here says that "we can get away with it"? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- What COM:PRP means to this project, is if we can't determine the copyright status without a shadow of a doubt, we must delete it. russavia (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Note where it says "significant", and in this case there is no significant doubt, only paranoia. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- What COM:PRP means to this project, is if we can't determine the copyright status without a shadow of a doubt, we must delete it. russavia (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you realise that COM:PRP is talking about a completely different case and nobody here says that "we can get away with it"? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Russavia: a PD work can make fair use of copyrighted material, but if we isolate that copyrighted portion and present it by itself, we can't claim fair use any more. This is like finding a copyrighted photo in a Wikipedia article and republishing it without the text of the article. Rybec (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now that may be a reason to delete. If it can be shown that in the film that frame was used under fair use, then this file here must be deleted. A very good and possibly valid point. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that the point that has been made from the very beginning? And shouldn't the basic principle be "Copyrighted until shown otherwise", instead of the other way around? --Conti|✉ 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, the point that was being made was that it is just a copyrighted frame that somehow found its way into the public domain video that has been around for 48 year we're the first ones to notice it. Also it has been shown that the film as the whole series of frames is in public domain, even the nominator stipulated that right from the start. Now is the first time that somebody says that the original filmmakers put this part in under the fair use doctrine, and I agree that if there's (per COM:PRP) "significant" to believe that, then of course the file should be deleted. So far there's only "maybe they took a copyrighted work and fair used it", but that can be said about any work released into the public domain from which a derivative is then made. "Maybe copyrighted" is not "significant doubt", it's a statement of a possibility. Now, I like watching arguments of creationists against rationalists, and one of the things that distinguishes them is the point of being falsifiable. So here's what would make my argument false. If somebody finds a statement by the film-makers that says "some portions of this film are used under fair use". This wouldn't show that this particular one is, but it would create a significant doubt about the status of this frame. Without such a statement we have film-makers saying "we release all this work into the public domain" and for 48 years it goes completely unchallenged. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Having said all that. I do see how an administrator can look at the image and see a reason to delete it. Thus I ask that whatever the decision of the closing admin will be that one provides an explanation for the deletion/keeping. I will try not to comment here unless something that hasn't already been said comes up. I've written more in this thread than I probably should have as it is. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fair Use did not even exist as a term in 1965, thus it is absolutely impossible that the film back then could have claimed Fair Use and thus create "significant doubt" by your definition. So your definition of "significant doubt" does not seem that useful to me. A much more useful way to look at it would be to look at the context of the film: It is a propaganda film from 1965, privately financed, and it is about the (perceived) horrors of pornography. The film shows copious amounts of pictures from pin-up and similar magazines (with hilarious censor-bars everywhere). Now the question is: Is it likely that the film makers, wanting to show the horrors of pornography magazines, asked said magazines for permission to publish their pictures to denounce them? Is it likely that those pictures already were in the public domain and free to be used by the filmmakers? No, of course not. It's absolutely unlikely that either was the case. One could say that there is "significant doubt" that either was the case. What is more likely is that the filmmakers simply took the images without asking and used them in their film, not caring at all about copyright status. And the magazines did not want to draw any more attention to the issue by suing them, especially since copyright law back then was not as clear about Fair Use as it is today (again, "Fair Use" as a term did not even exist in law at the time). So is there significant doubt that those images are in the public domain? Yes, absolutely, there is. --Conti|✉ 11:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that the point that has been made from the very beginning? And shouldn't the basic principle be "Copyrighted until shown otherwise", instead of the other way around? --Conti|✉ 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Videos of the film are in Category:Perversion for Profit. Rybec (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per arguments above. Basically the Burden of Evidence is on those who want to keep, so COM:PRP means we delete it - 48 years might seem long, but unfortunately it's not long in the copyright arena. 99of9 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AdamFromTheVillage (talk · contribs)
[edit]It appears this user has uploading under the mistaken assumption that images without a copyright statement at the source are in the public domain. None have valid PD reasons, a few may be old enough to be PD but do not have sufficient information on first publication to verify this.
- File:Independence Day Abuja Bombings.jpg
- File:MEND rebels.jpg
- File:Nigerians Celebrating.jpg
- File:Abagana Ambush.jpg
- File:Dead Marc Gossens.jpg
- File:Adekunle At Arochukwu.jpg
- File:Thee Rascals Graffiti.jpg
- File:Capture of the El Mosquito.jpg
- File:Igbo Boys with Dead Gorilla 1906.jpg
- File:Rolf Steiner Onitsha.jpg
- File:Biafran Soldier with Ammunition.jpg
- File:AtwaterAvenueElementarySchool, 1923.jpg
- File:CapturedAmmunitionNsukka.jpg
- File:BiafranSoldierAbagana.jpg
- File:UmuahiaOperationOAU.jpg
- File:M.E.N.D.patch.jpg
- File:MendRebelsSpeedboat.jpg
- File:CollapsedBridge1927.jpg
- File:BiafranSoldiersInAsaba.jpg
- File:NigerianTroopsShellingPortHarcourt.jpg
- File:BiafranSoldiersAba-Umuahia.jpg
- File:CapturedBiafranSoldiers1968.jpg
- File:BiafransDefendingAba.jpg
January (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AdamFromTheVillage (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Country of origin/photographers information should be provided.
- File:Nigerians Celebrating Lagos.jpg
- File:Benjamin Adekunle Arochukwu.jpg
- File:Captured Biafran soldiers.jpg
- File:Shelling of Port Harcourt.jpg
- File:Abagan Ambush aftermath.jpg
- File:Rolf Steiner at Onitsha.jpg
- File:Biafran Soldier with Captured Ammunition.jpg
- File:Biafran Soldier Near Abagana.jpg
- File:Biafran soldiers near Asaba.jpg
- File:Nigerian soldiers with captured ammunition.jpg
- File:Umuahia During Operation OAU.jpg
- File:Biafran soldiers on Aba-Umuahia highway.jpg
- File:Biafrans Denfending Aba.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete These are reuploads of some of the photos in the existing DR. All are photos of events in Nigeria dated 1967-9, not old enough for {{PD-Nigeria}}. January (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted:
- File:Thee Rascals Graffiti.jpg is out of scope.
- File:Capture of the El Mosquito.jpg is in public domain, published in 1922 in US.
- It's not clear if File:Igbo Boys with Dead Gorilla 1906.jpg were first published in US or Nigeria, but in both case (1906 < 1923, 1906 < 2013-51) it's in public domain.
- File:AtwaterAvenueElementarySchool, 1923.jpg is from an unknown author, from an unknown publication date (the uploader seems to have misinterpreted this document)
- The others are Nigerian photographies, with a 50 years after publication copyright term.
Low resolutions and missing (or no valid) EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
Jespinos (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP, out of scope, if not used by now. I thougth the third one might be a useful image of braces, but I see category:dental braces has a lot of options.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bidhan datta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Bidhan dutta 4.JPG
- File:Bidhan Dutta 2.JPG
- File:Bidhan Dutta 3.JPG
- File:Bidhan Dutta 1.JPG
- File:Mr. Bidhan Dutta.JPG
- File:Bidhan Dutta.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Julietamontiel (talk · contribs)
[edit]band spam, no educational value
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The buildings look modern. No evidence that the architects have been dead for at least 70 years. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Fiera District Tower 7 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 6 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 5 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 4 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 2 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 1 BO.jpg
- File:Fiera District Tower 3 BO.jpg
- File:Via E. Ferrari 40 Building.jpg
- File:Boscolo Hotel BO.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivate works without permission.
- File:Milo Lockett nota slide.jpg
- File:Lockett Sin titulo3 Siluetas.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl6.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl5.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl4.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl3.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl12.jpg
- File:Milo locket xl13.jpg
- File:MLockett2.jpg
Savhñ 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
private pics, no educational value
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Makmakovitch (talk · contribs)
[edit]music spam
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tomazinho Cavalcanti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with OP, out of scope, if not used by now.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
project page now available on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Museum_f%C3%BCr_Hamburgische_Geschichte/Wachgek%C3%BCsst ; no longer needed on Commons. Christoph Braun (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dan Writes as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion| Dear All, Please help me remove this photo i have uploaded because i am creating a new reliable and more credible article about this subject. Thank you
Converted by me to DR, as the image was uploaded 10 months ago and has at least one external uses (outside of WMF projects), which a deletion would rob a source for the image. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
nieprawidłowe współrzędne Szaserow59 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Alan.lorenzo as no source (no source since). Is the given source Armed Forces Radio & Television Services (Now AFN) obtained from series co-producer, David Cameron good enough for {{PD-USGov}}? JuTa 19:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the article was public domain because the source was the U.S. Government AFRTS Network.
Deleted -FASTILY 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Late, But the 2nd Season Poster was public domain because it came from the Armed Forces Radio Television Services Network (AFRTS).
- Restored: as per [4]. Yann (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=169732867#File:Magic_Mansion_2nd_Season_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
nieprawidlowe wspolrzedne Szaserow59 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete as a courtesy to the uploader/jako pomoc dla uploadera. Deletion was requested by the uploader within one minute. Rybec (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 19:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted TV screen. Vantey (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Japanese:
English:I uploaded new file that the screen was black outed. Please delete the old version of the picture. Thank you for your help. I am sorry if I made a mistake in grammer.--E217 (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think the problem is no longer. 厳しい掲載基準ゆえ投稿者にもお手数をおかけしております。コモンズではjaと違ってたぶん過去版の削除まではされないと思いますが、当面問題は無くなったと思います。--Vantey (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: After revision-deletion of the older version with copyrighted image on the screen per above, there is no need to delete this. whym (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee
[edit]- Category:Banknotes of Sri Lanka
- Category:Banknotes of Sri Lanka, 2011
- File:2009 mahinda 1000r b copy.jpg
- File:2009 mahinda 1000r f copy.jpg
- File:Lkr 200 f copy.jpg
- File:Lkr 200 b copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 5000 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Lkr 200 f copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 5000 (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 1000 (new).jpg
- File:Cur sl 1000 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 500 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 500 (new).jpg
- File:Cur sl 100 (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 100 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 50 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 50 (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 20 (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 20 b (new) copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 2000 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 2000 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 1000 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 1000 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 500 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 500 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 100 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 100 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 50 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 50 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 20 copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 20 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 10 r copy.jpg
- File:Cur sl 10 copy.jpg
- File:Sri Lanka Rupee New Bank Notes.jpg
- File:Cur sl 1000 b (new).jpg
- File:Cur sl 500 b (new).jpg
- File:Bc0040 10r 2009.jpg
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_copy.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I am creating this request based on a discussion at en:WP:NFCR#Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee.
Most of these claim to be user-authored which is obviously fictional. There is no law that has been cited on the en discussion that would make banknotes immune from copyright and {{PD-Sri Lanka}} only says that laws and court decisions are public domain - not other works of their government. I looked on page 8 of the Sri Lankan copyright law linked from that template and I suppose it could be argued that banknotes don't fall into any of these categories. So for that reason they may be public domain and this should be given reasonable consideration.
According to the article on :en, the oldest of any of these I am nominating is 1981 so if they are copyrightable, the copyright would not have expired.
Also of note, the uploader's talk page is filled with deletion notices for other Sri Lankan banknotes. They were deleted in December 2011 in a bunch of individual deletion discussions like this or this. --UserB (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Two comments:
- According to COM:FOP#Sri Lanka, there is no freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka. Some of the banknotes show buildings. If those are real buildings, as opposed to fictive buildings like those on the euro banknotes, then some of the images may have to be deleted on freedom of panorama grounds. No idea if other aspects of the banknotes may be copyrightable.
- Jheald (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs) are currently having an edit war at w:Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee. In some revisions, these files appear on the page and in some revisions they don't appear on the page, because the users disagree on how Wikipedia's w:WP:NFCC policy should be interpreted here. Werieth (talk · contribs) claims that the files should go away per a request for comment, while Jheald (talk · contribs) claims that the request for comment is invalid per a more recent deletion discussion where Jheald (talk · contribs) found a problem in the request for comment. In a more recent request for comment, it was concluded that such use of non-free currency images is unacceptable, but there were very few people commenting and the closure seems to violate Wikipedia's w:WP:INVOLVED policy, so I am not sure if the closure is correct. If the conclusion is that the images belong on Wikipedia, it may be useful to tag them with {{Fair use delete}} before deleting them from here, if the conclusion is that they are unfree. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that even in the version of the article where most of the images were removed, the Commons-hosted ones were still in place. In any event, I have restored all of the images to the article since we generally try not to remove images while a deletion discussion is in progress unless it's just an absolutely blatantly obvious case or there is some compelling reason that the image cannot be allowed to remain in place for a week while we debate it (like a credible claim that the image is the wrong person or something). --UserB (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- One thing I would ask, by the way, is that whoever processes this request check out en:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_21#Sri_Lankan_banknotes before doing so. If a decision is made there to keep a representative sample of the images, I have suggested that File:Cur sl 10 copy.jpg, File:Cur sl 1000 copy.jpg, File:Cur sl 20 (new) copy.jpg, and File:Lkr 200 f copy.jpg be copied down to Wikipedia and used under a claim of fair use. --UserB (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per UserB MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dan Writes as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Dear All, Please help me remove this photo i have uploaded because i am creating a new reliable and more credible article about this subject. Thank you
Converted by me to DR, as the image was uploaded 10 months ago and has already a number of external uses (outside of WMF projects), which a deletion would rob the source for the image. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep This photo can be removed from the Wikipedia article without deleting it from Commons. It's unclear how this photo would detract from the reliability or credibility of the Wikipedia article, anyway. This was uploaded last June. Rybec (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: for the reasons stated MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
the artist allowed not to be photographed. the artist allowed no publishing of this picture 77.5.194.4 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The artist was pictured at a public event (Kulturbörse Freiburg) I was allowed to follow this contest, with other journalists at this event. I do not see a n y reason for this try (artists agency!) to delete this file. Ich war als Pressefotograf akkreditiert und durfte a l l e s fotografieren und natürlich auch hier veröffentlichen. Haraldbischoff (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Haraldbischoff MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
the photographer was not allowed to take the photo of this artist. the artist allowed no puplishing of this picture 77.5.194.4 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The artist was pictured at a public event (Kulturbörse Freiburg) I was allowed to follow this contest, with other journalists at this event. I do not see a n y reason for this try (artists agency!) to delete this file. Ich war als Pressefotograf akkreditiert und durfte a l l e s fotografieren und natürlich auch hier veröffentlichen. Haraldbischoff (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Haraldbischoff MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an official NASA release, it's an artist's leak. Ras67 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete not oficial twitter. Copyvio: https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/268526157568307201 --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: for the reasons given MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an official NASA release, it's an artist's leak. Ras67 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete not oficial twitter. Copyvio: https://twitter.com/astrorm/status/268430668122443776 --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: for the reasons given MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is not a place to store such private flag proposals. Use Flickr or similar websites. Antemister (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Unfortunately that's not really what the standing de facto policy has been on Commons. There are many hundreds of "special or fictional" flag images here, and they're not usually deleted just for being "special or fictional" alone, but only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). I don't really see what harm this image does -- it's not official, but it doesn't claim to be official, and it's based on well-known historical symbols. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about "original research", but it's been painstakingly explained to you several times already that Commons in fact does not have a "no original research policy". AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Anonmoos. Fry1989 eh? 17:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes we have several such flags here, but they are clearly out of scope. A flag designed by the uploader without any source is private artwork, which is out of scope. AnonMoos seems to be the only one here who really wants to keep them here.--Antemister (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- As opposed to all the other private artwork we host here? This is an image repository, not Wikipedia. You seem to have a slant. Fry1989 eh? 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Antemister -- why did you say that I'm the only one who wanted to keep them right after Fry1989 voted "keep"???? That comes across more as a desperate denial of basic reality than a smooth rhetorical maneuver or effective debating trick. In any case, there are not a "few" special/fictional/unofficially-proposed flags and coats of arms on Commons -- there are in fact hundreds of them here (very possibly thousands), and you've conspicuously failed to show any reason why this file is worse than most of the others (in fact it's not). If you want the standing de facto Commons policy on special/fictional/unofficially-proposed emblems to be changed, then you should really start a discussion on the matter at an appropriate prominent centralized location (such as Village Pump), because sniping at a few semi-randomly chosen individual images with deletion nominations won't really do the job. However, if you do start such a centralized discussion, you would probably be wise not to insist on your own personal interpretation of original research, because that line of argument hasn't led to any useful insight as to what should be kept and not kept on Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep In scope. Per others. Tm (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- @AnonMoos: Yes there are hundreds of such flags. Any of them is out of scope. I'll start a DR on that whole category at some time, once I've gathered some supporters.--Antemister (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't waste your time. You now admit you're on a hunt to get rid of these flags, and as soon as you start that mass DR we'll just quote you here. It's incredibly transparent what you are trying to do and you have been told enough times that Commons does not have such limitations. Get over it and move on. Fry1989 eh? 20:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry: Yes, I know that I am "on a hunt to get rid of these flags", cleaning COmmons from such strange out of scope images.--Antemister (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're not cleaning up anything, you're just trying to get rid of things you don't like. I Don't Like It applies. Stop wasting your time and go do something productive, or perhaps Anonmoos and I will have to take your personal bend to a wider forum of discussion. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry: Yes, I know that I am "on a hunt to get rid of these flags", cleaning COmmons from such strange out of scope images.--Antemister (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't waste your time. You now admit you're on a hunt to get rid of these flags, and as soon as you start that mass DR we'll just quote you here. It's incredibly transparent what you are trying to do and you have been told enough times that Commons does not have such limitations. Get over it and move on. Fry1989 eh? 20:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep per COM:PS, "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project is allowed." File is displayed on User:R-41, the contributor's user page. Rybec (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I dont know if we make an exception for flags, but this is original art by a currently nonnotable wikimedian, and thus is beyond our scope. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read the discussion above? There are many hundreds of proposed / "special or fictional" flag images on Commons, and traditionally they have not usually been deleted just for being "special or fictional" alone, but only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of such flags - and everyone is one to much. Such fictional flags are out of scope and confusing for users.--Antemister (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't think that that's anywhere near the highest priority for improving Commons now. You seem to spend a lot of effort on agitating various pedantical semi-non-issues which have very little effect or results when it comes to improving Commons. P.S. It's spelled "too"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Commons:NPOV has since its first revision given "that flag does not exist" as an example of a dispute that should not be raised on this site. This particular flag is no longer shown on R41's user page, and the files in Category:Special or fictional flags typically aren't especially informative or likely to be reused, in my opinion. Rybec (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment sorry, i missed the above discussion, having not checked the talk page. I disagree that the only mitigating factor should be some inappropriate usage. i tried to get a clearly racist file deleted here, and the ONLY criteria by which it could be deleted was that it was original art by a nonnotable wikipedian (ie someone not known publicly for their artwork), and thus out of scope. no one successfully argued that it could be deleted as hate mongering. Im not going to belabor the point, and I Withdraw my request. The commons has a problem: where do we draw the line with postings of original art? if we are not a free webhosting service, then why is this work here? we also have thousands of images of commercial products whose packaging is under copyright. saying "we have them now" is not a rationale for keeping them. however, this problem will not be solved here, and i guess i dont even want to address it here if there is strong support for keeping such images. PS i thought at first this was a flag proposal from a legitimate source, so i was briefly fooled, and afterwards confused: if an uploader doesnt specifically say in the description of their fictional flag its relation to reality, anyone could assume its a legitimate proposal. I do understand having some personal files uploaded for our user page, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, but I'm not sure how legitimately confusing the image description page can be, when User:R41's username is included in the filename, and template {{Fictitious flag}} is displaying a big red box... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Same as previous DR. Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is none of anyone's business to tell me what I can or cannot upload here. Have I threatened anyone or agitated for violence? No. Have I produced fraud? No. I clearly indicated that it is a fictional flag. Now if this claim has "withdrawed", why is it still open. CLOSE IT. This is really frustrating. I find the rhetoric by Antemister here to be the most condescending and snotty behaviour that I have ever encountered here. The other users, particularly Fry1989 are completely correct, this is not Wikipedia, but Antemister treats it like Wikipedia and is on some crusade to delete original artwork from here. That is censorship, and I hope he fails in his petty crusade.--R-41 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete self-created artwork, no educational use and is therefore out of COM:SCOPE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGA (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice; however, that traditionally has not been the only thing considered in this particular area. AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
kept: While I think that we should get rid of all those fictional flags nominating random flags is not the way to do so. Please start a general discussion about this subject and reach some consensus for deletion concidering these personal artworks. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE. This file is no longer used on user pages. 沈澄心✉ 11:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per previous discussions, in fact I find it kind of odd that this flag, which was previously widely used on user pages, has disappeared from them. This flag is not misleading as it's properly tagged as being a proposal. my issue with the deletion of these false files comes down to two things: 1. (One) Fundamentally, I believe that Wikimedia Commons should be home to all (non-heinous) free media. Free culture isn't just about educational content - it's about making all sorts of intellectual property free to use. It should not be gatekept to a certain type of media. If there were another free media repository out there that was hosting non-educational free media, I would be fine with the Wikimedia Commons closing its doors to somethings. But honestly, we're pretty much all there is, so we have a responsibility to keep free media alive by embracing all of its diversity. 2. (Two) Even without a scope change, I believe that the Wikimedia Commons' "educational purpose" should be interpreted to include cultural and artistic education, not just "the transfer of knowledge". And when I say culture, I mean all culture, not just cultures and subcultures we subjectively label as "worthy". So I oppose these DR's on the basis of my interpretation of this policy—depictions of fantasy and fanart are, broadly speaking, culturally educational. Note how this flags integrates various cultural iconography from Chinese history based on the Five (5) Races Flag.
- Of course, the above would be "a broad view" of educational that this flag is "artistically educational", but it's better than a narrow view of the word as there is no policy specifically against these and the topic remains controversial, with most of these DR's being closed based on the personal beliefs of the closing admin regarding the interpretation of the educational value of such images. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. As it is now, such images are generally considered out of scope. Commons does not serve as a repository for any and all free image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
COM:PS. Depicts nothing. A.Savin 08:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A typically Savin. He don't likes me and goes this way. How miserable... - and ofcourse is something to see. The View from the Beach party to the port of Haifa, the sea on the left. It's dark, but definetly anything visible. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the image is blurry and shows nothing other than streaks of light. I do not know Marcus Cyron and have no axe to grind. It's just a blurry photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep The quality is bad, but I was able to discern some things and people in it. Rybec (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete terrible quality, not usefull at all --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 08:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
COM:PS. Depicts nothing. A.Savin 08:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. This picture shows some dirt or water upon the lens of the camera, nothing else.Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep It shows three people standing on a beach, looking out to sea. Rybec (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it seems that we could easily replace with a higher quality picture of three people standing on a beach looking out to sea. I can't see much educational value, and the quality is terrible. --99of9 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete terrible quality, not usefull at all --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 08:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Info The other photo has a passing car in it (lower right). It might be better to keep this one and delete the other. Rybec (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: delete one kept other FASTILY 01:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am the author of this file, I designed the image, I changed my copyright stance on it to be restricted to requiring recognition of my authorship of it and my permission prior to use. I have decided to delete the file from Wikimedia Commons. One user is using the image, I have sent a message to that user stating that I appreciate that user's supports the flag design, but have informed her/him that I am intending to delete the file. R-41 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: Unfortunatelly, a CC license "grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license". That means that cannot be revoked Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- It's ridiculous that I cannot delete my own file, I created it, it is my design. I am adamant that I DO NOT WANT my design on Wikimedia Commons anymore. How about this: how about a new upload is made with just a big crossed out x with the word "removed" on it, and the old version is deleted by you or any administrator? A note can be placed in the description box below saying that this was done in an agreement to remove the original design per the author's request while legally maintaining the file per copyright status. That way the file is still technically there, but the original design has been deleted.--R-41 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Commons is not a place to store such private flag proposals. Use Flickr or similar websites. Antemister (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- We kind of already went though this recently (see immediately above, though significant parts of the discussion about the last deletion attempt actually took place elsewhere), and if an uploader's request was not sufficient to get the file deleted, then I don't know that a nomination by a random individual like you will do it. In any case, what you're claiming is unfortunately not really what the standing de facto policy has been on Commons. There are many hundreds of "special or fictional" flag images here, and they're not usually deleted just for being "special or fictional" alone, but only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). I don't really see what harm this image does -- it's not official, but it doesn't claim to be official, and it's based on an already-established alternate symbol of Toronto. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about "original research", but it's been painstakingly explained to you several times already that Commons in fact does not have a "no original research policy". AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- For f*cks sake not again. Keep obviously, this is the third time this has been nominated. Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- For f*cks sake not again.
By the way, I have the impression that flickr doesn't even host SVG files... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep: a glance at Category:Proposed flags shows that these are customarily allowed. Furthermore this is in use, if only on User:R-41 and w:User:Basser_g. Rybec (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This photo is currently available on Panoramio under the "All Rights Reserved" license, see [5]. There is a comment entry on that page where the author of the photo gives his consent to use it on Wikipedia, but it is unclear whether he is aware that his photo may be used by anyone and for any purpose. I am not sure if this photo is acceptable on Wikipedia. Jespinos (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hola, yo soy sólo la persona, quien ha cargado el archivo aquí, pero NO quien le ha cargado a en.wikipedia.org. Esa acción fue cumplido por el usuario "Rickraider". En el en.wikipedia.org puede ser leído: "This is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons." Yo sólo he copiado aquí. Zerind (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is scan by Gorelov, but not his own work. Это было отсканировано Гореловым, но не он дизайнер диплома vlsergey (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Он едва самого меня не свел с ума, доказывая мне, что меня нету! Но вы-то верите, что это действительно я?--95.25.124.2 09:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work, screenshot of a video sequence, possibly copyrighted. A.Savin 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Might be possible that all content produced on Wikimania has been declared to be under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- But it's the uploader's job to prove this. -- Rillke(q?) 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep If one opens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PUaZlvIuQk&list=UUZ8iNP1OE_ppqlGGEo5sYTg&index=56 and clicks "Show more", it says "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" Rybec (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work, screenshot of a video sequence, possibly copyrighted. A.Savin 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Videos of the opening ceremony were uploaded to Youtube by user "WikimediaIL" under a free license; they are listed at
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUZ8iNP1OE_ppqlGGEo5sYTg . Rybec (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the source and the true author(s) have not been properly credited, it's a null and void argument. --A.Savin 06:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The source and author can be corrected; what do you feel would be correct? Or do you assert that one or both remain unknown? Rybec (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work, screenshot of a video sequence, possibly copyrighted. A.Savin 08:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Videos of the opening ceremony were uploaded to Youtube by user "WikimediaIL" under a free license; they are listed at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUZ8iNP1OE_ppqlGGEo5sYTg . Rybec (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete terrible quality (extremely blurry), not usefull at all --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Blurry, not usable FASTILY 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
COM:PS. Depicts nothing. A.Savin 08:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. This picture shows nothing at all. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the quality is bad, but on a properly adjusted monitor one can see that it shows two people standing, looking away from the camera toward the sea. Rybec (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- And the potential usefulness for Commons or any other project is ...? --A.Savin 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps to document the beach party at Wikimania Israel 2011? Rybec (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- According to Commons:PS#File_not_legitimately_in_use, it would be a very bad "document" (if someone indeed came to the idea to "properly adjust" their monitor, maybe also to use a magnifier or so). But well, it seems that you're one of those who "always must have the last word", so I'll better refrain from further elaborations, hoping that there's an admin who takes common sense into account while closing Rfd's --A.Savin 07:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps to document the beach party at Wikimania Israel 2011? Rybec (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- And the potential usefulness for Commons or any other project is ...? --A.Savin 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete terrible quality, not usefull at all --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is scan by Gorelov, but not his own work / design. Also there are non-free non-trivial logos. vlsergey (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Что ж я собственный диплом не могу отсканировать?--Максим Горелов (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Отсканировать можете. Лицензировать -- нет. -- vlsergey (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- В принципе, если нет подходящей лицензии и черт с изображением диплома.--Максим Горелов (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Отсканировать можете. Лицензировать -- нет. -- vlsergey (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)