Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/21
 |
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:Erect Penis 7-8 ".jpg](#File:Erect_Penis_7-8_".jpg){kind=link}
_(sheDB0210).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_the_expo_2013-05-20_08-45.jpg){kind=link}
_-3_2013-05-19_17-14.jpg){kind=link}
![113 File:This is my staffy Rogue wearing a "Mr Potato Head" type disguise- I've also had this image put onto calendars and a mug! 2013-05-19 21-43.jpeg](#File:This_is_my_staffy_Rogue_wearing_a_"Mr_Potato_Head"_type_disguise-_I've_also_had_this_image_put_onto_calendars_and_a_mug!_2013-05-19_21-43.jpeg){kind=link}
,minaakar&the_grate_artist_on_enamaling_to_gold&silver_jewellry_in_live_india-bikaner(rajesthan)_2013-05-20_00-51.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
User for vandaism on enwiki, fraudulently attributed Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Pure vandalism. Ed (Edgar181) 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Not "own work" of uploader. Crop of AFP Getty image with no valid permission info. Lousy/lossy bad crop too - just as a bonus. See also File:Malik Zulu Shabazz323.jpeg... Begoon - talk 01:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete Extremely unlikely that this isn't copyvio. — Werewombat (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Clear copyright violation with blatant false claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happiness.jpg
Nudity and should be deleted Pantiesgirl123 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Nudity per se is not a reason for deletion, but this was a prompt deletion request by the uploader; orphan penis photo not showing anything Commons doesn't have many alternative images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Nudity and should be deleted Pantiesgirl123 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Nudity per se is not a reason for deletion, but this was a prompt deletion request by the uploader; orphan penis photo not showing anything Commons doesn't have many alternative images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Cropped from http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/Y5rVeGP-yEY/FIFA+World+Cup+Kick+off+Celebration+Concert/d7u-3pMcJrr/Lira (June 9, 2010 - Source: Michelly Rall/Getty Images Europe) Puramyun31 (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio/derivative work - see here Эlcobbola talk 18:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also delete all the uploads from these users Dfjfedfub, Cvkfekjf238, CMMM34. All those are hoax creations and i think this three users is the same person. Sorry for my english
- Translation: También eliminar todos los archivos de estos usuarios Dfjfedfub, Cvkfekjf238, CMMM34. Todos esas banderas y escudos son creaciones falsas y creo que estos tres usuarios es la misma persona.--Inefable001 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you think they are the same person, you should report that to administrators. Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did but they ignored me. Maybe you as native english speaker can do it better than me.--Inefable001 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you think they are the same person, you should report that to administrators. Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: mass dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
out of focus penis. Pleclown (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
![19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/21#c-Pleclown-2013-05-21T19:03:00.000Z-File:Erect_Penis_7-8_".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: That's not a penis, it's a zombie. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
![07:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/21#c-Mattbuck-2013-05-22T07:26:00.000Z-File:Erect_Penis_7-8_".jpg){kind=link}
This is an attack image that does not further the aims of Commons or the Wikimedia projects. Uploader is a Wikipedia vandal and probable sockpuppet. ukexpat (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Image was deleted by User:Túrelio with comment "This is an attack image that does not further the aims of Commons or the Wikimedia projects. Uploader is a Wikipedia vandal and probable sockpuppet." -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice photo of the floor, bad photo of a penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I will upload a better one if the old one is deleted! You should delete it!- User:Foxtick
Deleted Poor quality own penis snapshot. Deletion consented to by uploader. Foxtick: Commons already has a great number of penis photographs, and unless you can submit something with particularly high professional photographic quality that is significantly different from or superior to what we already have, I suggest your time on Wikimedia would be better spent illustrating things other than very common objects we already have hundreds of images of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what is still missing in existing collection of explicit materials? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete we already have more than enough penis on commons. AshFriday (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
per COM:PENIS, reupload. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, different photo than previous, but another undistinguished photo of very common object which Wikimedia already has many better images of. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No description of the file, I can't make out what this is. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please close this deletion request. Above is not a valid reason. I have asked User:Sreejithk2000 to have a look at all of the user's uploads as none have proper description or name. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Nominator withdrawn the request. Sreejith K (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Prize winning cheese by the makers of Wisconsin Goliath Cheeses, Steves Cheese produced by Steves Cheese Co., Denmark, Wisconsin.jpg
[edit]
COM:DW: derivative work of some copyrighted content High Contrast (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Appears to be a copyright expired postcard by Tichnor Brothers; Boston Public Library source says "no known restrictions". What work that is still under copyright is included in the image? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also do not see how this could be a derivative work. It was likely that the "Steeve's Cheese" company hired the Tichnor firm to make the postcard for them, or a Tichnor salesman stopped into the cheese maker one day and sold them the idea of a postcard to promote business. I imagine it would be sold in the giftshop. The copyright would have been with the Tichnor Brothers, but due to the formalities, fell out of copyright.
- I don't see how this was a derivative work, the Tichnor company likely took the picture, or it was supplied to them by the Cheese company for use in the production of the postcard... Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is a derivate work because you (?) did scan it? You may have luck because it is old enough so that question is out of interest. --High Contrast (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, Boston Public Library scanned it from their own collection of media from Tichnor Bros postcard co. High Contrast, what exactly are you disputing about the copyright status as posted? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read my statement above? It is a derivative work because somebody scanned it equal if it was this library or the uploader. By now all problems seem to be solved. Wasn't clear, Infrogmation? --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, Boston Public Library scanned it from their own collection of media from Tichnor Bros postcard co. High Contrast, what exactly are you disputing about the copyright status as posted? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I guess all is said: Thanks for your support in order to have this thing save on Commons. High Contrast (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Emblem of the 2018 Winter Olympics - Copyrighted 195.169.141.54 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I have recreated the file in en.wikipedia. Hektor (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Most olympic logos are very complicated and therefore copyrighted. This one is not. The olympic rings we already have on Commons, the rest is extremely simple rectangles and an asterisk.
Keep Fry1989 eh? 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- And you have a something, a statement by the PyeongChang organizing committee for instance, to support your assertion that this logo is not copyrighted ? I notice for instance that on the PyeongChang website the logo has a ™ attached to it but that it has conveniently been edited from the image posted on Commons Hektor (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to have something from an organisation specifically stating they're logo or symbol is PD. We have tonnes of logos on here without such a written notice saying they're PD. PD-textlogo, PD-shape and PD-simple all apply. Fry1989 eh? 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- No they don't. This logo has no ground to be in Commons. And we are dealing with an organization, the IOC, which is very protective of intellectual and artistic property. Hektor (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, they absolutely do. Are you aware that the olympic rings are already here? So take them out of this image. Do you really believe what is left, that 4 rectangles forming a very nondescript shape and an asterisk, are enough to form a copyright? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but this is a case of "sad day for them". They chose a logo that is too simple, it is PD. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to burst YOUR bubble but the IOC had the Sochi 2014 logo removed from Commons and it was far less complicated than this one. Hektor (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have been doealing with copyright on Commons for 3 years, I know what is simple and not. Sochi's was removed because it uses a distinct font that was specifically created for the logo. This one does not. This is PD simple, PD shape and PD textlogo. Sad day for them, you can't protect something that is too simple for copyright in the first place. Fry1989 eh? 23:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to burst YOUR bubble but the IOC had the Sochi 2014 logo removed from Commons and it was far less complicated than this one. Hektor (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, they absolutely do. Are you aware that the olympic rings are already here? So take them out of this image. Do you really believe what is left, that 4 rectangles forming a very nondescript shape and an asterisk, are enough to form a copyright? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but this is a case of "sad day for them". They chose a logo that is too simple, it is PD. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- No they don't. This logo has no ground to be in Commons. And we are dealing with an organization, the IOC, which is very protective of intellectual and artistic property. Hektor (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have to have something from an organisation specifically stating they're logo or symbol is PD. We have tonnes of logos on here without such a written notice saying they're PD. PD-textlogo, PD-shape and PD-simple all apply. Fry1989 eh? 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- And you have a something, a statement by the PyeongChang organizing committee for instance, to support your assertion that this logo is not copyrighted ? I notice for instance that on the PyeongChang website the logo has a ™ attached to it but that it has conveniently been edited from the image posted on Commons Hektor (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Most olympic logos are very complicated and therefore copyrighted. This one is not. The olympic rings we already have on Commons, the rest is extremely simple rectangles and an asterisk.
- Keep: As Fry1989 mentioned, {{Pd-textlogo}} applies here, because the simple forms in the logo does not meet the treshold of originillaty. Amitie 10g (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple logo, even I am able to do that. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Recreated after deletion for an Administrator. Copyrighted Olympic logo. And remember that you are individually responsible for what you upload. Hektor (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was immediately restored because it is too simple for copyright. Denniss may not understand that, but Fastily did. You also don't understand copyright. This is too simple. PD-textlogo, PD-Shape and PD-ineligible ALL apply.
- Anybody new to this DR should be aware that while the image was initially deleted by Denniss, a proper reasoning was not provided and the image was immediately restored through unDR. Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Further to what Fry mentioned. 99.229.41.79 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close: the logo is in the public domain. I actually undeleted per a formal undeletion request. The logo is a textbook instance of failure to pass the threshold of originality because it consists of geometric shapes which are too simple in nature to qualify for copyright protection. -FASTILY 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The image is an incorrect reproduction of the original logo. The ™ sign next to 2018 has been omitted. Hektor (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Speedily, this is an abuse of the DR process and a trivial reason to nominate an image. Fry1989 eh? 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close yet again, same reason as above. -FASTILY 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
An svg version is keep without deletion request 2605:BA00:4138:155:FD66:6234:D89A:C194 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
speedy kept (non-admin closure) Not a reason for deletion, see COM:DUPE and COM:INUSE. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. No educational value Sreejith K (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Raised a mass DR on users images. So closing this one. Sreejith K (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Happyhappyboy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:-Nicki Minaj 2, 2011 kjnskjckw dkjjjjjk.jpg
- File:Nicki Minaj - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer dnjncjk.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvios. Trijnsteltalk 18:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Re-upload of earlier deleted image, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hooolis. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is OTRS permission for files by Hoolis. This file was re-uploaded as File:Hrad Buben.jpg, so, please, create redirect to File:Hrad Buben.jpg. --Harold (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- O.k. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Now with permission, but duplicate of File:Hrad Buben.jpg. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong type of copyright allowance for commons. Blevey88 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete: no evidence of permission for a press image attributed to "Tony Marshall/EMPICS Sport". Ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. January (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, the photo is marked as © carpathianrace.eu on the source page https://www.facebook.com/KarpackiWyscigKurierow?hc_location=timeline Pleclown (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: clear case. JuTa 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Suspicion of copyvio: the same image is on this page: http://www.gazetegez.net/detay.asp?hid=4315 Pleclown (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 22:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Copvio of http://thedeadhub.com/ see also the other uploads of the contributor Pleclown (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all JuTa 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
PHP code. Used as test case for bugzilla:48306, which has since been fixed. Superm401 - Talk 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Mormegil (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in pt.wiki on user page. This is allowed. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Image is now used (in the time of the nomination it wasn't) High Contrast (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
False authorship claims - likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Kept per PD-text High Contrast (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Pleclown (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
_(sheDB0210).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(sheDB0210).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Clear copyright violation. Photo was in 2011 and the banner was visibly new at that time, so PD-US-no notice and PD-US-1978-89 wouldn't apply. — Werewombat (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
_(sheDB0210).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
_(sheDB0210).jpg){kind=link}
some homepage material, out of project scioe Motopark (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a photo or scan of a marketing poster or brochure. I see no reason to believe that the uploader was the original photographer. In any event, the company logo is almost certainly copyrighted. — Werewombat (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
la photo n'est plus actuel puis et les indications permet mon identification Matteo Milane (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Coypvio, I strongly doubt that the uploader is the author (see the upload log). Pleclown (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Non commercial creative commons license Wrybicki (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Romania // Gikü said done Tuesday, 21 May 2013 07:47 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not a private album hosting service. Out of project scope. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Caption translates to "This is me". No evident notability nor in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The description page states "own work of author (present for wiki)". There is no evidence whether the author and the uploader are the same person or not, but in my opinion this is dubious. Unless an OTRS confirmation is received, it is best to delete this image per COM:PRP. Eleassar (t/p) 08:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused image with unknown purpose. The uploader's all other contributions are also presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
다른 사진으로 대체됐습니다. Kyj9029 (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete 저작권 침해 / copyright violation[1] --Stefan4 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't speak the language the text is written in, but the fact that it's mirrored plus the general appearance plus the strange description looks very much like "out of scope" to me. El Grafo (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Es un dibujo artistico creado en parte con Facegen, y trata de expresar un diálogo jeroglifico de otros mundos que estan en el confin de las galaxias. Como se sabe, existe un Dios cuyo nombre es Yhwh, algo difícil de pronunciar, luego este mismo Dios, envió a Jesús, quien nació como humano, y en el evangelio de San Juan, este Jesús dice como 20 veces que fue enviado desde otro mundo, y habla de su Padre, que no es otro que Yhwh, y según los ultimos estudios de los astrofísicos Las Galaxias son lo mas lejano que se percibe en el Cosmos, ademas dicen ellos que el Universo continúa en expansión. Una lógica razonable y sana, nos dice que mejor es creer que todo fue creado, y vean que la teoría del Big-Bang y la de Darwin no tienen principios válidos, son argumentos volátiles, y la Santa Biblia afirma que todo lo creó Yhwh, entonces en mi modesta opinión, la Santa Biblias es un libro que contienen jeroglíficos, pues está accesible y en cada idioma, pero a exepción de unas pocas personas, millones de personas no desean creer. y lo mas grave, es que Jesús, el hijo de Yhwh, anunció un Ultimatum al planeta Tierra en el año 33, pero millones de personas, incluido ministros y presidentes, desprecian esta amenaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiulNico (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello SiulNico, thanks for the explanation. I used Google translate to translate it to english:
- “It is an artistic drawing created in part with FaceGen, and dialogue about expressing hieroglyph of other worlds that are in the confin of galaxies. As we know, there is a God whose name is YHWH, something hard to pronounce, then this same God sent Jesus, who was born as a human, and in the Gospel of St. John, this Jesus says like 20 times it was sent from another world, and talks about his father, who is none other than Yhwh, and according to recent studies astrophysicists The Farthest Galaxies are perceived in the cosmos, they also say that the universe continues to expand. A reasonable and sound logic tells us it is better to believe that everything was created, and see that the theory of the Big Bang and Darwin do not have valid principles are volatile arguments, and the Holy Bible states that YHWH created everything, then in my humble opinion, the Holy Bible is a book containing hieroglyphics, as it is accessible and in each language, but exception of a few people, millions of people do not want to believe. and most serious, is that Jesus, son of YHWH, announced an Ultimatum to Earth in 33, but millions of people, including ministers and presidents, despise this threat.”
- Commons is not the right place for your personal opinion or artworks you create based on that (see Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto). I'd suggest you take that to Flickr.com or something like that. --El Grafo (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) By the way: This statement has nothing to do with the content of your text. You would have gotten the same answer if it had been pro Darwin/Big Bang/whatever.
- Delete No educational value. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a xerox of something that might have been some kind of textbook. Seriously doubt "own work". El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative, blurry, orphan, no evidence of in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 May 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) 10:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
False authorship claims - likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 May 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) 10:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Image is a derivative work of non-free statues and decorative buildings. The US does not provide Freedom of Panorama for statues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Album (?) cover from a rock band. Uploader might be a member of the band, but I think we need a permission via Commons:OTRS. El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Annotations are probably "own work" but what is the source/copyright status of the two graphics used? El Grafo (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment The uploader Tekksavvy is overall very suspicious person. A lot of his uploads are deleted due to copyright problems. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Full resolution version is available on Flickr with "all rights reserved". See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Olivares28. El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As much as I understand, this image violates newspaper copyrights. Also, the photo has bad composition and is unused. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The map is copyrighted. Look carefully, and you see the words "Abdullah Khan copyrights" middle of the map. Taivo (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No valid source info given as well. Highly likely a copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:High-resolution version of Brikho's ad as it appears on the back cover of Real Detroit Magazine.jpg
[edit]
COM:DW - a derivative work of a copyrighted content High Contrast (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader User:Brikho2014 might be candidate George Brikho for whom this is a advertisement, and thus might hold the copyright (if so, uploader should explain). However even if so, may not be in project scope -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete This might be true but without evidence it is just speculation. Nevertheless, I doubt that it is inside the project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
bad jpeg, small resolution, not in use, no categories McZusatz (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of copyright clearance or ownership. Photo appears elsewhere such as http://s3.amazonaws.com/crunchbase_prod_assets/assets/images/resized/0025/7340/257340v2-max-250x250.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I do not understand what possible educational or otherwise use this can have. Seems to be some experiment made with a photograph during a carro de cesto (wicker tobogan) ride in Madeira, but we do not even know what technique was used, or of it's useful at all. Darwin Ahoy! 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's a text document, believably listed as own work, not used anywhere and hence not in COM:SCOPE. Prosfilaes (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Taivo (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This photo is used only in article proposal en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bev James, which failed a request for creating an article in last May. Comparing uploader's name with proposed article name, I am sure, that this is self-promo. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagged for a while for being misleading; I agree--the chemical doesn't actually have this covalent bimolecular form. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete +1. There should be a crystal structure. --Leyo 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect per tag. Have File:Beta-santalol.svg and File:Beta-santalol.png. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Also orphaned and of low resolution. --Leyo 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Subject/uploader has requested deletion per Template:OTRS ticket ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 28 May 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) 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment High Contrast presented for deletion only two files, but almost all the uploader's contributions have the same mistakes. All these files are used, nevertheless. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to add those files to this discussion and they get deleted as well. --High Contrast (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- All these photos are made, as much as I understand, about Indonesian or Pakistani army and/or police personnel and vehicles. All are used:
- Feel free to add those files to this discussion and they get deleted as well. --High Contrast (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- File:Satpol PP members.jpg (640×427)
- File:Satpol pp riot anticipation.jpg (400×266)
- File:Ford Ranger Indonesian Patrol Police Car.jpg (371×462)
- File:Mobil polisi.jpg (450×275)
- File:Indonesian Police Car.jpg (240×180)
- File:Polisi rusuh.jpg (300×200)
- File:Polisi indonesia jaga.jpg (448×336)
- File:Polisi indonesia.jpg (478×348)
- File:Polisi2.jpg (450×301)
- File:Indonesian Coast and Sea Guarding Police.jpg (299×168)
- File:Kopassus (Indonesian Elite Special Force).jpg (750×471)
- File:Pakistani Rangers March.jpg (520×347)
- File:Border Security Force (BSF) soldiers.jpg (350×225)
- File:BSF soldiers march at Wagah Border.jpg (650×974)
- File:TNI-AD soldiers.jpg (600×424)
- File:TNI-ad.jpg (720×540)
- File:TNI-drumband.jpg (640×426)
- File:TNI-AU soldiers.jpg (565×350)
- File:TNI-AU-1.jpg (640×427)
- File:TNI AL.jpg (750×499)
- File:TNI-AL 3.jpg (580×393)
- File:Paspampres reduniforms.jpg (288×274) Taivo (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_soldiers.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
If they are used or not does not make any difference - these images are blatant copyright violations. Taivo, thank you for bringing all other images into this discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 00:34, 28 May 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) 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused personal picture, no educational value Pete F (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, likely not own work. Savhñ 17:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Web resolution. Possible copyright violation. Even if it is not, the image is unusable because of the resolution. Sreejith K (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logo, passes the threshold of originality. Not a simple geometric shape. Savhñ 17:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused image. No encyclopedic value. Looks like it is the photo of the uploader, but hasn't been used in over 2 years. Sreejith K (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, no file metadata. Unclear licensing. Savhñ 17:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
doubtfully own work Polarlys (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
doubtfully own work Polarlys (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Stiffado next to one of his paintings in his first group with Banksy, Andy Warhol and Keith Haring 2007 2013-05-21 01-03.jpeg
[edit]
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless some notability can be demonstrated (for artist, or gallery, or event shown) and description expanded accordingly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No conceivable usage. Seems like a test. --hydrox (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Alan (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
scan of a promotional press release of a not notable restaurant. Out of project scope PierreSelim (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to being outside of Commons' project scope, it is also a copyright violation. The uploader claims that this is his own work, but on his user page, he states that his name is Bhuban Mohan Mridha, and the text is clearly signed by VGS Vinodhraj. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:AREIDA expo was held this summer and was a big success- Thanks to the president Mr PK SHARMA and umang communications- 2013-05-20 08-55.jpg
[edit]
low quality, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Neha builders Areida( Assam real estate and infrastructure development association) at the expo 2013-05-20 08-45.jpg
[edit]_at_the_expo_2013-05-20_08-45.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_the_expo_2013-05-20_08-45.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Jacob Wolfe is an American actor- A stage actor- Soon to be broadway- Born April 29, 1998- Famous for participating in the Wolf Theatre Academy- 2013-05-19 18-40.jpg
[edit]
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete At first reach Broadway, then come back. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Spongebob has been around 4 a long long time and it dosen't matter how old r u u will always love spongebob -') -3 2013-05-19 17-14.jpg
[edit]_-3_2013-05-19_17-14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-3_2013-05-19_17-14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
another low quality penis photo Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Www - habibfamily - weekly-comموقع الموقع الإلكتروني لعائلة حبيب بالمنوفية 2013-05-20 00-10.jpg
[edit]
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:This is my staffy Rogue wearing a "Mr Potato Head" type disguise- I've also had this image put onto calendars and a mug! 2013-05-19 21-43.jpeg
[edit]
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:This my grandfathar late-sri mohanlal ji soni(danwar),minaakar&the grate artist on enamaling to gold&silver jewellry in live india-bikaner(rajesthan) 2013-05-20 00-51.jpg
[edit],minaakar%26the_grate_artist_on_enamaling_to_gold%26silver_jewellry_in_live_india-bikaner(rajesthan)_2013-05-20_00-51.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,minaakar%26the_grate_artist_on_enamaling_to_gold%26silver_jewellry_in_live_india-bikaner(rajesthan)_2013-05-20_00-51.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
signature of uploader, imho 'out of scope', Roland 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.gigaturismo.com/archives/2011/10/tango-en-pilar-golf---pablo-agri-y-cuarteto.html The name hasn't been changed... Pleclown (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: uploaded for use with deleted hoax biography en:Corin hooper JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong doubt. Looks like a photo (or a screenshot) of a video (especially since the head is cut with a black stripe over it) Pleclown (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Strong doubt. No Exif, the same image can be found on a youtube video and similar images on the website of the subject. see also the others upload of the contributor Pleclown (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, clearly a rip-off of http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/8413605767/ which states "Copyright by World Economic Forum." Pleclown (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.gotceleb.com/laura-marano-2013-disney-channel-kids-upfront-2013-03-13.html/laura-marano-2013-disney-channel-kids-upfront-07 Pleclown (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy delete as it is originally from Getty Images at http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/laura-marano-attends-the-disney-channel-kids-upfront-2013-news-photo/163572160 --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:2009-Balıkesirspor A2-2009-Balıkesirspor-2010-2011-Galatasaray-2012----ARADÖNEM-2013-Fenerbahçe Dönemi 2013-05-21 21-11.jpg
[edit]
out of scope Pleclown (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of kevinrudolf.com See also the other files of the uploader Pleclown (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of kevinrudolf.com See also the other files of the uploader Pleclown (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of kevinrudolf.com See also the other files of the uploader Pleclown (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Pleclown (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Pleclown (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Watermark says Copyright Rolf Hicker. El Grafo (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Martin H. as no permission (no permission since). As I cannot find an externalsource for it - compare [2], I trusted the uploader as he named the author as [[user:Fcls974|Philevin]], but I might be wrong. JuTa 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal photo. The subject is non-notable, no mention in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Zhis image is part of a teaser for a videoclip. See http://taylorswiftsweden.se/2013/may/musikvideo-for-highway-dont-care-pa-mandag.html for example Pleclown (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
copyvio https://itunes.apple.com/be/podcast/mosselen-om-half-twee/id439584930 Pompidom (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, the source does not provide a licence. Pleclown (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
used by mistake --Wortkraft (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
blurry and bad quality, not in use, imho out of scope, Roland 19:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Pleclown (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, promotional image Pleclown (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, promotional image Pleclown (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
"Asdfh", that is mentioned in the description, is not visible in this image. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be a large block of orange color. Hard to believe we will need this. (Also, clearly missing the "g".) --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a scan from a newspaper. The original uploader (on the English Wikipedia) claims "self-made", but he may just mean he scanned it. There is no information about the actual copyright holder. Another user asked the uploader about this image on the uploader's talk page over three months ago, but got no response (though the uploader has edited since then). It's also nominated for deletion at the English Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Origin unknow; the image is not in the public domain and there is no evidence provided for a free license High Contrast (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Origin of this image is unknow; the image is not in the public domain and there is no evidence provided for a free license High Contrast (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Origin of this image is unknow; the image is not in the public domain and there is no evidence provided for a free license High Contrast (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio 
(discusión) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Ignacio (discusión) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Main focus is company logo, which is copyrighted. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not de min enough. The text may be too simple but the cup may not be. My judgment may not be the best though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Too much focus on Copyrighted logo. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy. Eleassar (t/p) 11:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Look your best, feel your best, and make a fashion statement with the fashion and image consulting services of Len Melekard- Here at Len Melekard, fashion and business management is a true passion and we enjoy working w 2013-05-20 07-07.jpg
[edit]
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely. Taivo (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Maico Eijlders geboren 22-05-1995 in Hengelo NL,--Maico o-a bekend van de Nederlandstalige hits Liefde is een virus & Zoveel Moois---De carrière van deze 18 - jarige zanger begon tijdens het carnaval in 2010 waarbij hi 2013-05-20 14-33.jpg
[edit]
unused, personal file, no realistic educational use, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Private picture used for self-promotion, no educational value. Pleclown (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of focus penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Commons has a wealth of much better photographed peni pics. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of the Cayman Islands
[edit]No evidence that these banknotes are free for any reason.
Stefan4 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:NTT DoCoMo
[edit]screenshot of the view of NTT docomo's copyrighted map software. copyvio per COM:SS
Nightingale (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- DeleteMight (or might not) qualify as fair use on the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias that allow fair use justifications, but definitely not acceptable on Commons. — Werewombat (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:War Record Paintings from Japan
[edit]The author is this painting is Tomoharu Mikami 三上知治(1886－1974). Still copyrighted art work. undelete this in 2045.
Nightingale (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:CSafran18
[edit]User CSafran18 has uploaded a lot of files:
- File:Opening Day 2011 Promotional Logo.jpg
- File:DD Logo 2012.jpg
- File:Venge Logo 2012.png
- File:Kitchen Logo 2012.jpg
- File:Stealth Logo 2012.jpg
- File:Hipsters 2012 Logo.png
- File:Rough Riders 2012.jpg
- File:Dirtbags 2012 Logo.jpg
- File:Lone Tree DirtBags Team Photo.JPG
- File:Dirtbags Win the Title.JPG
- File:Venge Team Prayer.JPG
- File:Tennis Baseball World Series 2011 Teams.png
- File:Coleman Squalls At Bat.JPG
- File:Bison Park Lights.JPG
- File:FirstLogos.jpg
- File:DirtbagsLogo.jpg
- File:OakleyCourts.jpg
- File:Safran Swing.JPG
- File:TBL Logo.jpg
They are used only in user page article about strange hoax, non-existent team sport with such teams as Team Kitchen, Montezumas Revenge and Denver Designated Drinkers, among others. The user page article does not consist any link outside wikipedia. Therefore the whole article is out of scope. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:ProudTwiceSecondName
[edit]User ProudTwiceSecondName has uploaded these two photos:
They are both unused personal photos with bad quality and bad name. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Zalima
[edit]User Zalima has uploaded 5 images and in my opinion they all are copyrights violations. One of them is presented for deletion earlier and here are the others:
They are all screenshots from video game and uploaded as own work. Taivo (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Which video game? Maybe an open source one under a free license? COM:OTRS ({{OTRS pending}})
can help. A comment by User Zalima is highly appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, source: http://www.krynea.com/ ■ MMXX talk 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaahreedelizaaldee (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
- File:Elizalde 2.1.jpg
- File:Elizalde 1.1.jpg
- File:Elizalde 4.jpg
- File:Elizalde 3.jpg
- File:Elizalde 1.jpg
- File:Elizalde 2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all Taivo (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files taken from website http://www.e-flux.com/client/armenian_center_for_co/, low resolution, unlikely own work by the uploader.
- File:Direction Map of ACCEA.jpg
- File:Giant Hall of ACCEA 2.jpg
- File:Giant Hall of ACCEA.jpg
- File:Parquet space of ACCEA.jpg
- File:Location of ACCEA in Yerevan City. Melancholy (1957) by Yervand Kotchar at the Entrance of ACCEA.jpg
_by_Yervand_Kotchar_at_the_Entrance_of_ACCEA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lencloitre (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of advertisement and historical photos. Some may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Queen Elizabeth II & King Gustaf - 1954.jpg
- File:Robert Perrier - Publicity.jpg
- File:Autumn tweed by Robert Perrier for Dior.jpg
- File:Maison Robert Perrier - 100 Years of Fashion - Publicity.jpg
- File:Robert Perrier - Photo.jpg
- File:Robert Perrier for Lanvin - Publicity.jpg
- File:Peau de faille fabric by Robert Perrier for Givenchy – Publicity.jpg
- File:Palmyre gown - Dior.jpg
- File:Tissus Robert Perrier – Publicity.jpg
- File:Acetate fabrics by Robert Perrier – Publicity.jpg
- File:Ceemo Tweeds Collection by Robert Perrier - Publicity.jpg
- File:Yellow organdy gown - Dior - Publicity.jpg
- File:Yellow organdy gown by Dior - Publicity.jpg
- File:Acetate fabrics by Robert Perrier - 1951 Publicity.jpg
- File:La Femme Chic - Cover page.jpg
- File:Serpentin, Mitou et Toti – Publicity.jpg
- File:Tissus Robert Perrier - 1946 Publicity.jpg
- File:Robert Perrier.jpg
- File:Shield of R-26 - Georges Vantongerloo.jpg
- File:R. vingt-six (R-26) - Django Reinhardt & Stéphane Grappelli.jpg
- File:R-26 - Madeleine Perrier & Jean Tranchant.jpg
- File:R-26 - New Year 1946 Card.jpg
- File:R-26 - Foundation.jpg
- File:R-26 - Party.jpg
- File:Stéphane Grappelli & Robert Perrier.jpg
- File:A picture of the young singer Marie-Jacques "Jacotte" Perrier, taken in 1936..jpg
- File:A photo of the journalist Marie-Jacques Perrier in 1958..jpg
- File:A photo of fashion journalist Marie-Jacques Perrier at the Plaza Athénée hotel in 1962..jpg
- File:Journalist Marie-Jacques Perrier at the Embassy of Pakistan in France.jpg
_-_Django_Reinhardt_%26_St%C3%A9phane_Grappelli.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Restoring per OTRS ticket number 2013060810004464 - Jcb (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lencloitre (talk · contribs)
[edit]Several different people credited as authors. No evidence of permission.
- File:Quintette du Hot Club de France with dedication.jpg
- File:Madeleine Perrier notebook.jpg
- File:Madeleine & Robert Perrier at R-26.jpg
- File:Farah Pahlavi and David Galloway (Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art).jpg
- File:Farah Pahlavi and David Galloway (TMOCA).jpg
- File:R-26 - Party decor.jpg
- File:R-26 - Perrier, Dudan & Tranchant.jpg
- File:Madeleine and Robert Perrier - 25th anniversary.jpg
- File:La pluie sur le toit.jpg
- File:R-26 Card.jpg
- File:Jivatma1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PCP --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Newtownhyd4 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright violation; not the uploader's own work. The uploader claims to be the author and copyright holder of these files, but on his user page, he states that his name is Bhuban Mohan Mridha. According to the file's metadata, the author and copyright holder is Kunal Daswani.
- File:Chicken Crostini.jpg
- File:Refried beans in taco Shells.jpg
- File:Fried fish with potato wedge.jpg
- File:Nasi Goreng Chicken.jpg
- File:Sago Tawa Fish with Tandoori Aloo.jpg
- File:New Town Two 0381.jpg
- File:New Town Two 0283.jpg
- File:Tenderloin Burger.jpg
- File:Banger and Mash.jpg
- File:Shellless Crab meat with Kotthu Paratha.jpg
- File:Tomato Olive Bruschetta.jpg
- File:Crusted Chicken in terragon Sauce.jpg
- File:Cafe Town De Paris.jpg
- File:Jamaican Jumbo Prawn.jpg
- File:Grilled Sandwich.jpg
- File:Red kidney beans goulash.jpg
- File:Teriyaki tenderloin Skewer.jpg
- File:Paneer tikka Wrapstar.jpg
- File:Roti Bom.jpg
- File:Lamb Murthaba.jpg
- File:Canai Wrap.jpg
- File:Kaya Toast.jpg
- File:Curry Mee Prawn.jpg
- File:Curry Mee chicken.jpg
- File:Roti Tissue.jpg
- File:Roti Canai Chicken Curry.jpg
- File:Chicken Satey with Peanut Sauce.jpg
- File:Mee Goreng Prawn.jpg
- File:Nasi Lemak Chicken Curry.jpg
- File:Nasi goreng chicken.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nirjhar goswami (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal images. I see no educational value. Commons is not a personal album
- File:IN LANCH.jpg
- File:DYFI.jpg
- File:WITH BIMAN BASU.jpg
- File:SFI.jpg
- File:WITH PRALAY DA.JPG
- File:NIHAR.jpg
- File:IN PARTY PROGRAMME.jpg
- File:Nirjhar.jpg
Sreejith K (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ozonegoeds (talk · contribs)
[edit]The particular files listed here for deletion discussion do not add anything educationally distinct to the collection of penis pictures already hosted by Commons. As such, they are not realistically useful for an educational purpose, and are out of scope.
- File:中学生の男性器5.JPG
- File:中学生の陰茎2.JPG
- File:中学生の男性器4.JPG
- File:中学生の男性器3.JPG
- File:中学生の男性器1.JPG
- File:中学生の男性器2.JPG
- File:中学生の男性器.JPG
- File:中学生の陰茎の勃起.JPG
- File:中学生の陰茎.JPG
Senator2029 08:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajni bhuria (talk · contribs)
[edit]out-of-scope, holiday photos...
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh jnjbhh.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh erse.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fghbjk.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fyufuy.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh yuf.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fuyguy.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh ghfthj.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dineshjbhgh.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh ghcg.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fxtj.JPG
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fty.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fxyg.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh gfuy.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fhhy.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh jhu.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh gbg.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh uhu.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh fhh.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh jjkk.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh jj.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh mm.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh ll.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love din.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love dinesh hh.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dineshNanital trip with my love.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my lo.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my lov.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love hhh.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love dinesh miss uuNanital trip wgvjgjith my love dinesh miss uu.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love dinesh miss uuNanital trip with my love dinesh miss uu.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh Nanital trip with my love dinesh miss uu.jpg
- File:Nanital trip with my love dinesh.jpg
Pleclown (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all, all are unused. But it was good to look at beautiful people. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: What new could be added to collection of images?
- File:Lusttropfen-Präejakulat.jpg
- File:Steifer Schwanz.JPG
- File:Vagina 2a.JPG
- File:Vagina 1.JPG
- File:Große Schamlippen 5.JPG
- File:Große Schamlippen 4.JPG
- File:Schlaffer Penis 1.JPG
- File:Große Schamlippen 3.JPG
- File:Große Schamlippen 2.JPG
- File:Steifer Penis 2.JPG
- File:Steifer Penis 1.jpg
- File:Erigierter Penis.jpg
- File:--Category-Große Schamlippen--.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all. We have better porn here. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyvios - I deleted one already, another states "photo by Augustine", there are 2 posters, a variety of cameras....
- File:TeRra and Frineds, poster at Super Deluxe, Roppongi, Tokyo,2012.jpg
- File:Han terra concert, aaa,SFC,2008.jpg
- File:Terra in Kimono.JPG
- File:Terra on performance in Boston, USA.jpg
- File:Terra with teachers.jpg
- File:Terra on performance.jpg
- File:Han TeRra Recital in Seoul.jpg
- File:Kayageum, Korean traditional string instrument.jpg
-mattbuck (Talk) 07:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skupina Dik O'braz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos. I think painter permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Dik O'braz promo 3.JPG
- File:Dik O'braz promo 2.JPG
- File:Dik O'braz promo 1.JPG
- File:Dik O'braz uživo u Tvornici 3.jpg
- File:Dik O'braz Djevojka iz Samobora.jpg
- File:Dik O'braz uživo u Tvornici 2.jpg
- File:Dik O'braz booom.jpg
- File:Dik O'braz uživo u Tvornici.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The files seems all to be scans from book illustrations. No info on original photographer(s), nor on permission.
- File:ShkSuren.jpg
- File:VerdiSuren.jpg
- File:BeginEra.jpg
- File:ThrnHll.jpg
- File:Gai07.jpg
- File:Frik02.jpg
- File:Gai03.jpg
- File:PolPris.jpg
- File:Portr01.jpg
A.Savin 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Trebovickymlyn (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution pictures (200x155 px) uploaded only for advertising purpose. The low resolution makes them unusable for anything.
- File:Grillakce.jpg
- File:Zahradka.jpg
- File:Sprchovy kout.jpg
- File:Ruzova.jpg
- File:Postele zvlast.jpg
- File:Postel manzel.jpg
- File:Otevrenikrb.jpg
- File:Apartman.jpg
- File:Altzahradkavrata.jpg
- File:Altzahradaleseni1.jpg
- File:Altzahradaleseni.jpg
- File:Altpohledzahrada.jpg
- File:Altpohled.jpg
- File:Altdomichavac.jpg
- File:Altaltankrb.jpg
- File:Po rekonstrukci.jpg
- File:Personal mlyn.jpg
- File:Pohled.jpg
Jklamo (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all, none is used. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by עינת בר-עם (talk · contribs)
[edit]False authorship claims - likely not the uploader's own work
High Contrast (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
File consists mainly of text alone and should possibly go to wikibooks/wikisource or something like that. Out of project scope on Commons IMO. Rahul Bott (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This file comes from English Wikipedia, and there were two files under the same file name on that project. The initial uploader of this file never seems to have edited the file information page, so the source and licensing status of this file is unknown. Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me! As far as I know, both versions of the same file were owned by each photographer. --DanTD (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Stefan. The user may be the creator, though he's long gone (last edit in 2006). A dozen other of his uploads were deleted from en.wp for unknown copyright status. Absent a declaration to the contrary I think we have to assume the image is non-free. Further, it's a terrible image: low-resolution, in the shade, and watermarked. Happily, I've found a far superior image of the same building on Flickr and uploaded it: File:Point Richmond.jpg. Edit: there's also File:Point Richmond Historic District.jpg. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Questionable copyright status. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 17:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in en.wiki, therefore in scope. Taivo (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like the article won't survive AfD. Please request undeletion if it does actually survive. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo for en:Thomas the Tank Engine → certainly not "own work". Maybe simple enough for something like {{PD-Textlogo}}? El Grafo (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The cloud motif seems a bit too complex for pd-textlogo, etc. INeverCry 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this image own work? It has no camera metadata unlike other images in the flickr account owner's photostream like this one Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: researched into ownership. flickr user photographed this subject and released photo under legit license. Sarah (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Renatorauld (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement, not own work.
- File:PicnicTweed.jpg
- File:Grupo Tweed.jpg
- File:ParejaTweed.jpg
- File:Twed Run Stgo..jpg
- File:TweedRun Stgo.jpg
- File:TweedRun.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Not advertisements, simply personal photos. But they are all used in his user page in es.wiki. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Three kept, three deleted. The first three are representational of tweed runs and have been added to the appropriate category. While the other three are also, they featured an original design and a promotional look. They are also being used to promote the event on the users Spanish Wikipedia page. The user should probably be asked to remove the promotional language from his user page, but I don't speak SPanish and can't do that! Sarah (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicate of File:Self-Portrait14 Van Gogh.jpg Pete F (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
niepotrzebny, wrzucony dla testu Prorok-5 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
signature of uploader, imho 'out of scope', Roland 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used on user page in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use on a userpage FASTILY 05:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Strong doubt of copyvio. No EXIF, and similar image here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=169412526460543&set=a.148698541865275.34365.148647531870376&type=1&theater Pleclown (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Jose Tomas Perez authorized this photo to climb into Wikipedia through his personal assistant told me, he is the Author of it and distributed it to the media when he made his presidential pre-campaign.
I can forward the mail to any moderator where I'm licensed.
Greetings. --Soyescritor (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 05:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Pleclown (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is used on user page in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use on a user page FASTILY 05:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal/self-promotional image INeverCry 22:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - image from 1929 - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 22:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 22:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused image of non-notable person INeverCry 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
No commercial freedom of panoroma in this country. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Mozambique. Also, File:Portuguese embassy, Maputo.jpg and File:Aeroporto Maputo.jpg. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dont agree about file File:2006 night Maputo Mozambique 203789466.jpg. The mz law says: "the image of the work is the principal subject". In this case the main subject is Maputo itself and none of the three or more buildins in it.
- I have some doubts about File:Aeroporto Maputo.jpg. The main subject is the airport itself, with a plane, people, several buildings, towers and the tarmac.
(sorry the poor english).--JotaCartas (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In both of those, buildings fill up the majority of the photo. The principal subject in the airport photo is obviously the airport, a building, except some people were caught in the side and a plane can be seen in the corner of the photo. In the first photo, the principal subject might not be a single building, however, the principal subject is multiple buildings as a whole that take up the whole photo. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In direct response to your argument, all of the city is buildings, there aren't any vast forests that break up the city. The whole city is buildings. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to satisfy COM:DM. This is not so much a photo of a building but a photo of an entire city. Photos of an entire city are typically assumed to be OK as no single building is the principal subject. See also the examples at COM:DM#Examples. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Since the Portuguese embassy may be sovereign property of Portugal then their FOP may apply, not that of Mozambique. Isn't it legally a territory of Portugal? If the others are de min then they should be Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This image likely fulfils COM:DM. There are many buildings in the photo. The image isn't cropped to focus on one single building. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- What about the two other photos? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The airport could probably be deleted, the embassy can stay as it should be covered by FOP Portugal. I agree that any 'cityscape' is just that and a group buildings would be de min with not one as the focus of the image. If Mozambique wishes to carry on with no FOP laws then their articles will just end up being more text than 'eye candy'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that copyright rules are determined by the copyright law of Mozambique, not by the copyright law of Portugal. I think that there was some similar deletion request somewhere, although I don't remember where. I didn't realise that those other images were part of the discussion. I think that the other two images need to go away. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The airport could probably be deleted, the embassy can stay as it should be covered by FOP Portugal. I agree that any 'cityscape' is just that and a group buildings would be de min with not one as the focus of the image. If Mozambique wishes to carry on with no FOP laws then their articles will just end up being more text than 'eye candy'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- What about the two other photos? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
After reading w:Extraterritoriality I am probably wrong about the embassy. The rules concerning w:Diplomatic missions are more about the people and not the property. Mozambique FOP would probably apply then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - only use is on talkpage of indef-blocked sockpuppett as part of their signature - talkpage hasn't been edited in 1 year INeverCry 23:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused image of non-notable person INeverCry 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - damaged file - no educational value INeverCry 23:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused image of non-notable person INeverCry 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 00:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 5tigerjelly (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 23:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Belinakarlsson (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused pics of non-notable people
INeverCry 22:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eji idut stroem (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional - unused text logos of non-notable company - single uploads of user
INeverCry 23:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - low quality - no educational value
INeverCry 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Personality rights. Subject does not consent to publication (ticket# 2013042910003018). The Flickr page suggests that the image was taken in the Federal Republic of Germany and shows a German citizen. Under section 22 of the German Art Copyright Act (Kunsturhebergesetz), first sentence, pictures can only be disseminated or exposed to the public eye with the express approval of the person represented. While pictures relating to contemporary society are excluded from that rule under section 23.1 of the Act, the present image does obviously not fall within the scope of the exceptional provision. — Pajz (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems like the uploader has taken the picture form a more or less private Flickr album. Wikimedia commons must respect personal rights of the depicted person. I support the deletion request. Also one has to take into consideration, that the picture is more or less a snapshot and not of high quality.--Einpixelimgesamtbild (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete as it was obviously made during a public performance Denniss (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I am re-nominating the image for deletion and am asking for another administrator to act on this request. As regards the principal matter, I refer you to my original reasoning:
- Per Commons:Personality rights. Subject does not consent to publication (ticket# 2013042910003018). The Flickr page suggests that the image was taken in the Federal Republic of Germany and shows a German citizen. Under section 22 of the German Art Copyright Act (Kunsturhebergesetz), first sentence, pictures can only be disseminated or exposed to the public eye with the express approval of the person represented. While pictures relating to contemporary society are excluded from that rule under section 23.1 of the Act, the present image does obviously not fall within the scope of the exceptional provision.
The deciding administrator nevertheless did not delete the image, concluding that there was "no reason to delete as it was obviously made during a public performance." I have contacted him since and asked him to elaborate on his reasoning, and I refer you to my question along with his response at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Denniss&oldid=96542624#Decision_of_Deletion_Request.
The reasoning as provided fails to comply with German law and, together with the accompanying comments, exhibits a misunderstanding of the legal provisions concerned; therefore, the previous decision of this deletion request is incorrect and I request again the deletion of this image.
- Under Wikimedia Commons policy, German law is relevant for assessing whether or not the photograph concerned can be kept, according to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Legal issues.
- The image in question is undoubtedly a picture within the meaning of section 22 of the German Art Copyright Act (KUG) (henceforth, "a picture").
- The fact that a picture was taken "during a public performance" does, contrary to the claims of the deciding administrator, not imply that the image can be kept on Wikimedia Commons. The deciding administrator unfortunately failed to provide the precise legal provision underlying his decision (despite my expressed request); however, his comments suggest that the rationale for his decision is the assumption that a person taking part in a public performance agrees to the use of resulting pictures by means of implied consent.
The proposition is wrong. While it is correct that a person taking part in a public performance regularly does implicitly consent to the use of pictures of this performance (provided that it is allowed to create such), the extent of this consent is limited in respect to content. I kindly refer you to the German High Court's Charlotte Casiraghi II decision (BGH GRUR 2005, 74 — Charlotte Casiraghi II), according to which an equestrian taking part in an international tournament has, "by way of her participation [...], given consent to the dissipation of pictures concerning her participation in this event. However, this consent does not extend to the dissipation outside the scope of reporting on the tournament" ("Zutreffend nimmt das BerGer. jedoch an, dass die Kl. durch die Teilnahme an dem internationalen Reitturnier, bei dem Pressefotografen offiziell zugelassen waren, zwar stillschweigend ihr Einverständnis mit der Verbreitung von Bildnissen über ihre Teilnahme an dieser Veranstaltung erklärt hat, diese Einwilligung aber nicht über eine Verbreitung im Rahmen einer Berichterstattung über dieses Turnier hinausging.") The picture in question, however, was used and will be used in other contextual environments as well, such as for the purpose of illustrating the article on the depicted person or for display in various categories on Wikimedia Commons.
Likewise, it was noted in OLG Düsseldorf ZUM-RD 2003, 541 — Veröffentlichung von Fotos eines Models als Mitwirkende an einer Straßenmodenschau that a model's participation in a fashion show and her apparent willingness to be photographed make it clear that she does consent to the publication of pictures created during the fashion show. However, "the depicted person's expressed or implied consent does not permit all acts of dissipation or publication" ("berechtigt selbst die von dem Abgebildeten ausdrücklich oder stillschweigend erklärte Einwilligung nicht zu jedweder Verbreitung oder Veröffentlichung der gefertigten Bildnisse"). In the case decided by the court it was found to be allowed because the pictures were used as part of "current reporting on the fashion show where she participated" ("zum Zwecke einer zeitnahen Bildberichterstattung über die Straßenmodenschau, an der sie teilgenommen hatte").
I hope this makes it clear that the participation in a contest ("European Slam Meeting", according to the Flickr source) does not convey by any means the permission to use pictures thereof independent of context, as is done on Wikimedia Commons as well as regularly on Wikipedia. - It cannot be assumed that consent was obtained by the Flickr user. It is obvious that even if this were the case (purely speculative), consent to the publication of a picture on website A does not entail consent to the publiction on website B. See also Michael Libertus: Die Einwilligung als Voraussetzung für die Zulässigkeit von Bildnisaufnahmen und deren Verbreitung. ZUM 2007, 621: "Bei Einstellung eines Bildnisses ins Internet kann von der stillschweigenden Einwilligung des Einstellenden dahingehend ausgegangen werden, dass andere User durch Hyperlinks auf das Bildnis verweisen. Nicht von der Einwilligung gedeckt ist jedoch die Übernahme des Bildnisses in fremde Webseiten durch Inline-Links oder Frames." (translation omitted)
In light of the actual legal requirements as sketched above, I kindly ask another administrator to reconsider the previous decision to keep the image. — Pajz (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Denniss made a good decision. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused, and subject has requested deletion. Courtesy delete. -FASTILY 01:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Snoopy
[edit]No FOP in the source country.
Nightingale (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Snoopy
[edit]The en:Snoopy character does not appear to be free. The drawing of it seems to be the whole purpose/focus of this set of images, not COM:DM.
- File:Comiciade 2018 - Vicki Scott - 1.jpg
- File:Comiciade 2018 - Vicki Scott - 3.jpg
- File:Comiciade 2018 - Vicki Scott - 4.jpg
- File:Comiciade 2018 - Vicki Scott - 5.jpg
- File:Comiciade 2018 - Vicki Scott - 7.jpg
DMacks (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tsuguharu Fujita
[edit]The artwork of [[::w:Tsuguharu Foujita]] (1886 – 1968) is still copyrighted. undelete in 2039
Nightingale (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- This digitized image comes from the website of StamfordHistory.org. This specific painting is the property of the US government, belonging to the U.S. Air Force Art & Museum Branch (their accession # 277.53), 1978. This specific photograph of the painting is from the "Naval Historical Center"; but now the name should be cited as "Naval History and Heritage Command".
This image is now tagged {{PD-US}} --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- DisagreeWhoever of US government possess the digitized image, it does nothing with the author's copyright. The author of the object of this digitized image is Fujita and thus still copyrighted. --Nightingale (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nightingale -- I think I understand your point. In order to be very clear, can we agree about two on-point facts: (a) The painting was taken by the US government in the war which ended in 1945; and (b) this specific painting and the digitized image of it are explicitly identified as the property of the US government? If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
Please clarify how this issue is be parsed. I do not know how to proceed any further. I look forward to learning how this interesting question is resolved. ----Tenmei (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- (a)This particular painting "十二月八日の真珠湾(1942)" was requisitioned by Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers(SCAP) in 1946 and returned to Japan in 1970. This painting is now stored in The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. Some of the war arts paintings requisitioned by SCAP were already returned to Japan from the US government as indefinite loan File:WarArtExhibition.pdf in 1970. This list includes this Fujita's painting. In fact one can see the photo of this painting with much better resolution than this file at a personal web site such as [3].
- (b)The fact that this particular image was digitized at a certain time of the past implies that the US government kept either the painting itself or its photograph at the time of digitizing process. Since the painting was returned to Japan in 1970 I reasonably assume that the US government digitized the image from photo of the original painting. Although you in the file description write that this painting is the US government property, I am not convinced until I learn more about the ownership issue of this particular painting. In general the requisitioned property by SCAP is not the US government property. For example, the landowner in Japan whose land was requisitioned after WWII and is still used by the US government is recieving the rent for his/her land. To summarise, the original painting cannot be the US government property unless further information is provided.
- Tenmei said ;<quote>If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
Please clarify how this issue is be parsed.<endofquote>
- I think so. Commons discussion and decision in DR has been largely made from the viewpoint of copyright not other rights which may be attached to the object such as trademark, ownership and personality rights. IMO, we, in DR discussion in this case, should at first hand focus on copyright issue of this particular painting.
- For your info, a more detailed account on how such war paintings were requisitioned by SCAP and returned to Japan is found in Reita Hirase's chapter in book "Art in Wartime Japan 1937-1945" pp. 163-169 ISBN 978-4-336-04954-4, though in Japapese. --Nightingale (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nightingale -- I think I understand your point. In order to be very clear, can we agree about two on-point facts: (a) The painting was taken by the US government in the war which ended in 1945; and (b) this specific painting and the digitized image of it are explicitly identified as the property of the US government? If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
- Comment Kimiyo Foujita (藤田君代), who was a wife & heir of Tsuguharu, won her case at the Tokyo High Court on 17 October 1985 - 判例 16． 藤田嗣治絵画複製事件 (東京高判昭和 60 年 10月 17 日判時 1176 号 33 頁). Both Kimiyo and Tsuguharu were granted French citizenship in 1955 (they don't have Japanese citizenship). Note: Kimiyo died on 2 April 2009. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Takabeg -- International intellectual property law is not a simple subject. A review of the opinion at Case 16. "Tsuguharu Fujita" may not be on-point. How does it help us understand what to do about the exceptional case which this specific artwork presents?
My guess is that the unique provenance of this artwork puts it in a rare category which is outside the scope of this opinion I do not know how to proceed any further. We'll see how this process unfolds.
Please consider en:File talk:Signing ceremony for the Axis Powers Tripartite Pact;.jpg. There are similar issues. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Takabeg -- International intellectual property law is not a simple subject. A review of the opinion at Case 16. "Tsuguharu Fujita" may not be on-point. How does it help us understand what to do about the exceptional case which this specific artwork presents?
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 23:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., these photos are protected by copyright in the United States. Per COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law, Commons can only accept images which are free in the United States.
- File:Swiss Arms SAN 511-1 27,5".jpg
- File:CZ 750 S1 M1 scope.jpg
- File:CZ 750 S1 M1 muzzle.jpg
- File:CZ 750 S1 M1.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 iron sight.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 reflex sight.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 muzzle.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 magazine.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1 stock.jpg
- File:CZ SCORPION EVO 3 S1.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO 10.5” - urban.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO 10.5” - foliage.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO 10.5” - od-green.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO 10.5” - flat dark earth.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO 10.5” - black.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO GL 12.5” - urban.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO GL 12.5” - foliage.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO GL 12.5” - od-green.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO GL 12.5” - flat dark earth.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA COMMANDO GL 12.5” - black.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - urban.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - foliage.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - od-green.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - flat dark earth.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 14.5” - black.png
- File:StG4 reciver.jpg
- File:StG4 handguard.jpg
- File:StG4 case ejector.jpg
- File:StG4 rear sight.jpg
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 16.0” - urban.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 16.0 inch - foliage.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 16.0 inch - od-green.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 16.0 inch - flat dark earth.png
- File:StG4 GUERNICA CARBINE 16.0 inch black.png
- File:Astra StG4 handguard.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 stock.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 case ejector.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 muzzle.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 front sight.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 trigger group and reciver.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 trigger group.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Carbine 16 inch right side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Carbine 16 inch left side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Carbine 14.5 inch right side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Carbine 14.5 inch left side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Commando GL 12.5 inch right side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Commando GL 12.5 inch left side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Commando 10.5 inch right side.jpg
- File:Astra StG4 Guernica Commando 10.5 inch left side.jpg
- File:HK33 with scope.jpg
- File:HK63 POF.jpg
- File:MP Franchi 57.jpg
- File:Micro Galil.jpg
- File:Modern Galil.jpg
- File:HK 63.jpg
- File:SIG AMT.jpg
- File:MG 53.jpg
- File:BT APC45.jpg
- File:BT APC9.jpg
- File:Bushmaster ACR FeaturedBlack.jpg
- File:40mm grenades.jpg
- File:GL-06 with grenades.jpg
- File:GL-06 alone.jpg
- File:TP9 Carbine in a holster.jpg
- File:TP9 Carbine with suitcase.jpg
- File:TP9 with tactical light.jpg
- File:MP9 exlpanation top.jpg
- File:MP9 explantation.jpg
- File:MP9 standart.jpg
- File:MP9 in a holster.jpg
- File:MP9 with suitcase.jpg
- File:Mp9 with silencer and brasscatcher.png
Stefan4 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I refered my self to File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg where is written that it was 1st published in Switzerland so I applied that to these pics again. I just restored the talk page which has also some interesting discussion.--Sanandros (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- According to Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. the threshold of originality in the source country of the work has nothing to do with the copyright status of the work in the United States (except possibly if URAA is involved, but this isn't the case here). In that case, Japanese toys were found to be protected by copyright in the United States although the same toys were below the threshold of originality of Japan. The same must obviously apply to works from any other country, including Swiss photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- {{Useful-object-US}} may be helpful in making these acceptable here. (But note: That tag alone is far from sufficient...)--Elvey (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- {{Useful-object-US}} only covers the copyright of the weapons (and not the photographer's contribution), and only in the United States. It is unclear whether utilitarian objects are protected by copyright in Switzerland or not. As you can see at COM:TOO, utilitarian objects are protected by copyright in lots of European countries, and it is unclear whether the copyright laws of those countries allow photos of utilitarian objects.
- {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} only covers the photographer's contribution (and not the copyright of the weapons if those are copyrighted), and only in Switzerland. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Till now I didn't saw any real weapon which is by it's design copyrightable cause they do not express any kind of artwork. Weapons are designed based on mechanical principals and how you can control them in your hands. There exists some expectations of gravings in weapons but these weapons are not used for shooting.--Sanandros (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- {{Useful-object-US}} may be helpful in making these acceptable here. (But note: That tag alone is far from sufficient...)--Elvey (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all product shots of non-Swiss guns (basically the Bushmaster and the CZ750 ones). Just because these images were taken from Swiss websites, this doesn't mean that these Swiss dealers owned the copyright to these images. They're product shots, copyright owners are most likely the companies producing these rifles. The CZ750 is a Czech Sniper rifle. File:CZ 750 S1 M1 muzzle.jpg also exists here in a slightly larger version. File:Bushmaster ACR FeaturedBlack.jpg appears to come from the Bushmaster company: BushMaster ACR, Basic Folder config. Lupo 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- The other images are either product shots of Swiss guns (so presumably photographed in Switzerland by the Swiss producer), or evidently amateur photos taken by the Swiss dealers (for instance, all the waffen-joray.ch ones). For those, the status is unclear. (As an aside: I find it rather appalling and extremely bad taste to name an assault rifle "Guernica Commando" or "Guernica Carbine". What were they thinking??) In the Hasbro case, the copyright owner was a U.S. company (Hasbro). For the Swiss photos in the above list, we have, however, a Swiss photographer and no immediate U.S. copyright owner. The problem is now that there is another case, en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., in which the court found that to decide copyright ownership, the laws of the country with the "most significant relationship" to the work were to be applied. So, I still stand by what I wrote back then in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. There are several possibilities:
- Either a court decides these photos are copyrightable in the U.S., and the copyright holder was the Swiss photographer or the Swiss company. Then the photos must go.
- Or the court decides these photos are copyrightable in the U.S., and then applies Swiss law to figure out the copyright owner, and discovers that such photos are not copyrightable in Switzerland and therefore do not have a copyright owner in Switzerland. Therefore, the photographer or company cannot be the copyright owner (since there's no copyright on the photos in Switzerland), and therefore has no standing to sue in the first place. Case dismissed. Then the photos could stay. (In the Hasbro case, this possibility didn't exist; since the copyright claimant was a U.S. company.)
- Or the U.S. court decides the photos were not copyrightable in the U.S. (lack of originality). Then the photos could also stay. Given the low threshold of originality in the U.S., that possibility seems a bit unlikely.
- I don't know which way a court might decide. My personal opinion is that we should delete all of them per COM:PRP. I was rather happy when the Meili photo was deleted here; I think it was a mistake to ever upload it here. As "fair-use" over at en-WP it is fine; but I am quite unhappy about its undeletion here. Lupo 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, in the Hasbro case, it says that the original copyright holder was the Japanese toy manufacturer, but that the copyright had been transferred to Hasbro because of an oral contract between the two companies. In the same way, I'd assume that the photographers (whether Swiss or not) are the original copyright holders to the photos in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Itar-Tass was decided later. The official case summary even references Hasbro. In Itar-Tass they make a quite clear distinction between choice of law for ownership issues, and choice of law for infringement issues. It's only in the latter that they mention Hasbro. For ownership (of copyright) determination they quite clearly say to use the country of origin (or more precisely, the way the U.S. usually has interpreted that, as the «country with "the most significant relationship" to the property and the parties»). So, the second possibility above isn't quite off the table. However, the first also is possible, since Itar-Tass also says that only the «legal or beneficial owner of an "exclusive right"» has standing to sue. A U.S. court might perhaps consider a photographer of a photo that happens to be uncopyrightable in the source country still to have standing as a beneficial owner... ? Or, as you say, he might be admitted as per Hasbro. I don't know. But as I said above, personally I would delete all those images, including Meili. Lupo 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your conclusion to delete all pics? We need 4 the future a policy which either has a legal basis or which has any other reason, like how good we can follow this legal basis. I admit that Itar is difficult to imply but not impossible. 4 me prp is not a good argument cause it is more directed to usual internet policy in several forums which we don't want to follow.--Sanandros (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I had explained that above? I do not know which way a U.S. court would decide, don't feel sure about the second (Itar-Tass) possibility, and can't rule out the first (Hasbro) possibility. Our precautionary principle basically says "when in (serious) doubt, delete". Hence I would delete. The non-Swiss photos in the above list have to go anyway. Lupo 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your conclusion to delete all pics? We need 4 the future a policy which either has a legal basis or which has any other reason, like how good we can follow this legal basis. I admit that Itar is difficult to imply but not impossible. 4 me prp is not a good argument cause it is more directed to usual internet policy in several forums which we don't want to follow.--Sanandros (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Itar-Tass was decided later. The official case summary even references Hasbro. In Itar-Tass they make a quite clear distinction between choice of law for ownership issues, and choice of law for infringement issues. It's only in the latter that they mention Hasbro. For ownership (of copyright) determination they quite clearly say to use the country of origin (or more precisely, the way the U.S. usually has interpreted that, as the «country with "the most significant relationship" to the property and the parties»). So, the second possibility above isn't quite off the table. However, the first also is possible, since Itar-Tass also says that only the «legal or beneficial owner of an "exclusive right"» has standing to sue. A U.S. court might perhaps consider a photographer of a photo that happens to be uncopyrightable in the source country still to have standing as a beneficial owner... ? Or, as you say, he might be admitted as per Hasbro. I don't know. But as I said above, personally I would delete all those images, including Meili. Lupo 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, in the Hasbro case, it says that the original copyright holder was the Japanese toy manufacturer, but that the copyright had been transferred to Hasbro because of an oral contract between the two companies. In the same way, I'd assume that the photographers (whether Swiss or not) are the original copyright holders to the photos in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I'm very skeptical with regard to the applicability of {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} even in Switzerland except for one single picture, which is File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. For this specific photo, the Swiss Supreme Court has ruled that it isn't copyrightable due to a lack of creativity. But as this decision and the "Marley" decision (see en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality) have shown, a lot of individual judgment regarding a specific picture is involved (Wikipedia says "The impression is given that the mere aesthetic appeal of a photograph may contribute to its originality" - and "aesthetic appeal" is very much a matter of individual taste), and therefore I feel it's very hard to say based on the Meili photo that some other photo is likewise not "original" enough in Switzerland. I'm not really happy with the existence and current use of {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}... people use it even for own work, e.g. File:ABDe 4 4 16 Camedo 070209.jpg, which on the one hand shows a commendable spirit of fairness (by stating that you think your own work is not copyrightable), but on the other hand, a regular free license would be better for international use. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Meili decision seems to tell that {{PD-Art}} is a valid copyright tag in Switzerland, and I would also assume that COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet doesn't apply in Switzerland, but I don't know how much else you can say.
- I don't like the idea of using {{PD-ineligible}} (or similar) for own works. It may render the image unusable in other countries, and there is a risk that the guess about the copyright status may be wrong. The file File:ABDe 4 4 16 Camedo 070209.jpg also has a copyright tag which says that the photo was published for the first time in Switzerland, but we have no information about when or where it was published in Switzerland. All we know is that it was published in the United States when the uploader uploaded the file to Commons, but USA is not Switzerland. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the upload to Commons was the first publication of the railway photo (which seems rather likely), wasn't it simultaneously published in every country of the world, as Commons can be accessed (nearly) worldwide? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you upload something to Commons, then you clearly publish it in the United States, as I wrote above. Depending on the definition of 'publication' (which may differ from country to country), this may also count as publication in other countries, but at the very least, it was published in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the upload to Commons was the first publication of the railway photo (which seems rather likely), wasn't it simultaneously published in every country of the world, as Commons can be accessed (nearly) worldwide? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spermasklave (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: What new could be added to collection of explicit images?
- File:Gebrauchte Condome 6.JPG
- File:Gebrauchte Condome 5.JPG
- File:Gebrauchte Condome 1.JPG
- File:Gebrauchte Condome 3.JPG
- File:Gebrauchte Condome 2.JPG
- File:Blasen ist Darseinsberechtigung für mich.JPG
- File:Blase.JPG
- File:Blasdienste.JPG
- File:Ins Gesicht.jpg
- File:Nach der Besamung.jpg
- File:Angespritzt.jpg
- File:Das Sein umd leben eine Spermasklaven.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep all of the Gebrauchte Condome series (images of the sexual use of condoms themselves is non-existent on Commons for all practical purposes). Keep the rest since they are good quality images. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per "Commons is not an amateur porn site". We are clearly being used as a personal porn site in this case (the user name translates to "sperm slave"). Hell, on his user page the user writes "Liebe es Sperma zu schlucken und mit dem weißen Zeug in Berührung zu kommen", So there is absolutely no doubt about this. --Conti|✉ 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Plain COM:PORN or exhibitionism, respectively. Just consider his "name" (sperm slave) and his mission. No, commons is not a dumb database for every crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Crap amateur porn. No thanks. — Scott • talk 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Definietly out of scope FASTILY 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Spermasklave (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Sperma trinken 4.JPG
- File:Sperma trinken 3.JPG
- File:Sperma trinken 5.JPG
- File:Sperma trinken 2.JPG
- File:Sperma trinken 1.JPG
- File:Eigenes Sperma einfrieren.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and earlier deletions of files by same uploader above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted olympic logo. In addition it is not well copied which shows that doing such a logo is not that easy. Hektor (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is NOT copyrighted, it is too simple. You failed to prove it was copyrighted in this DR, and while an admin did delete and close that one, they did so without a proper reasoning and it was immediately restored in an unDR request. This is not copyrighted. PD-textlogo, PD-Shape and PD-ineligible ALL apply. Fry1989 eh? 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Further to what Fry mentioned.
Speedy close: see my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic official emblem.gif -FASTILY 07:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The image is an incorrect reproduction of the original logo. The ™ sign next to 2018 has been omitted. Hektor (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep You may upload an additional version of the logo with the ™ sign. --Leyo 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Speedily, this is an abuse of the DR process and a trivial reason to nominate an image. Fry1989 eh? 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close yet again, same reason as above. -FASTILY 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No evidence this is below the threshold of originality in South Korea. Many nations (even most) would consider this above the threshold. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for the third bloody time. This is so stupidly simple, it's obviously ineligible. Three PD licenses all apply, and more complicated logos from South Korea currently exist on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- How long must we tell you that w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and w:WP:JUSTAPOLICY are not a valid argument before you get it? I'm going with "until a few seconds before the heat death of the universe." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You don't have to tell me ANYTHING, thank you very much, you yourself should know those are Wikipedia policies, not Commons policies. "Other crap" does matter here, because it helps build an understanding of what the bar is. You're also the person who holds/held a backlog of images you "question", but don't actually bother to nominate, probably because you know you'll loose on about 70% of them. I'll only say this one last time, an asterisk and four rectangles in a non-descript shape is not complicated enough for copyright in almost any country. Your sudden interest in the image after it's been kept a collective total of 5 times is really irrelevant. It's PD-simple and that's a fact. Fry1989 eh? 04:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- How long must we tell you that w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and w:WP:JUSTAPOLICY are not a valid argument before you get it? I'm going with "until a few seconds before the heat death of the universe." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Olympic rings are PD 
and I can't see how an asterisk can change all that. There is the text, I think we can let them claim copyright over the 'y', the 'g' and maybe the capital 'C' but not 2018 !!!! I want to live that long. I don't want them keeping 2018 to themselves.
But seriously folks, Fry !! be nice !!! I'll put you in charge of my project when it's running, stop people from deleting things, although actually it won't have any DR's as such so that's moot. I'll put your care to good use somewhere though. It is frustrating for the same file to be nommed so often, but Magog the Ogre just started here as an admin, I voted for him, he's not an a**** like so many people are, so cut some slack. Magog the Ogre, we pretty much have no real choice but to make comparisons on things where there are no very very similar court cases to quote. There are a lot of files with court cases, and they'd make interesting reading I imagine (ZzZZZzzz) but that's pretty much everyday, roughly comparing things to work out what is ok. Now Australia, don't talk to me about Australia, they buck the trend with world class idiocy with the flag of the natives there, it's far too simple and even google got caught out by that sillyness. Pah, on planet Earth, it's good to take a look over what has court cases first, then what has been scrutinised before, and then just plain guessing really. Don't mind Fry, he's a good guy, people just get up his nose on purpose so much that he has like, hmm, a way about him, but he is a good guy.
Browsing through the Category:PD ineligible will give everyone a good idea about what is cool and what is not, don't see it so much as me pointing to one single item and saying othercrap exists, look at it as a category so large that it gives a general idea of what the project, the scrutineers, and the public all figure is ok. Ignore the most complex 10% and get an idea of the other 90% as the 'rule of thumb'. Penyulap ☏ 05:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It seems unlikely to me that this meets the Commons:Threshold of originality for copyright. A few points about this:
- Some countries do have very a low threshold of originality: see the Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos discussion from last year. I wouldn't expect other countries to have a threshold as low as the British without some reason; and in the case of this file, there is no reason to be South Korea law would derive from British law.
- The Olympic rings are not under copyright. They are not only very simple, but have been published and in use since at least 1912, and presumably simultaneously published in the United States with several other countries.
- Decisions to keep files on Commons are based only on copyright, not trademark or special legal status (which might apply to Olympic symbols). User:Hektor may have been confused about this. A work can be a fully protected trademark, or have special legal restrictions on specific uses, yet still not be copyrighted (or copyrightable).
- In my opinion, I think it's so likely to be below the threshold that it should be kept. If Magog the Ogre or other users presented some examples of things that are this simple and still have been declared copyrighted, that would probably push it far enough into the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to delete it, though. --Closeapple (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "precautionary principle" is a misused policy that is only really relevant for images that are straddling the fence. This image is stupid simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I nominated this thing twice and I have not changed opinion. Glad to see I am not the only one to think this. Hektor (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking there is a huge difference, I am betting one will read a few things, and the other won't. Almost time to call botman again ! Penyulap ☏ 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you Hektor it is just that, an opinion. One that is not based on fact and understanding of copyright, but out of fear and arrogance. Fry1989 eh? 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree to the arguments by Fry1989. Your opinion is not based in a deep understanding of the copyright issues. The image obviously does not meet the treshold of originality. You must learn about Copyright before nominating the file (and others of them) again. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking there is a huge difference, I am betting one will read a few things, and the other won't. Almost time to call botman again ! Penyulap ☏ 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep please: The file has been nominated twice and speedy kept twice, according to the reasons exposed above. Please stop abusing of the DR process and learn more about Copyright and treshold of originality. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read my nomination and see that it is substantially different from the previous two? It is rather clear that a) you didn't bother to read it, or b) you are too stupid to understand the difference between an argument based on policy and one based on vague assertions. Given that your only "argument" for keep has zero logic and is pure ad hominem, I'm guessing it's both. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- That was absolutely uncalled for. And what policies, might I ask? The Wikipedia policies you're so happy to quote even though they have no force here on Commons? You say "other crap" has no bearing, when you should clearly know (since you're trying to conduct a DR regarding the copyright of an image) that "other crap" is essential here in helping us set and understand the bar for originality. You obviously know that no such bar has been set for South Korea, but somehow I doubt you're planning on nominating every South Korean logo we have just to get this one gone as well. You also haven't attempted to use any outside sources to describe to us where the South Korean bar might be set at, so all we can do is use our current understandings of originality, and by all accounts this image is grossly under the bar, and you know it. So instead you have to resort to attacking another user, who has just as much right to have their say here as you do. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Calm down the lot of you, or I'll get on the telephone and tell your mummies you're not playing nice and need to be glared at !!!
- That was absolutely uncalled for. And what policies, might I ask? The Wikipedia policies you're so happy to quote even though they have no force here on Commons? You say "other crap" has no bearing, when you should clearly know (since you're trying to conduct a DR regarding the copyright of an image) that "other crap" is essential here in helping us set and understand the bar for originality. You obviously know that no such bar has been set for South Korea, but somehow I doubt you're planning on nominating every South Korean logo we have just to get this one gone as well. You also haven't attempted to use any outside sources to describe to us where the South Korean bar might be set at, so all we can do is use our current understandings of originality, and by all accounts this image is grossly under the bar, and you know it. So instead you have to resort to attacking another user, who has just as much right to have their say here as you do. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read my nomination and see that it is substantially different from the previous two? It is rather clear that a) you didn't bother to read it, or b) you are too stupid to understand the difference between an argument based on policy and one based on vague assertions. Given that your only "argument" for keep has zero logic and is pure ad hominem, I'm guessing it's both. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The statement "No evidence this is below the threshold of originality in South Korea." needs some supporting evidence, and "Many nations (even most) would consider this above the threshold." would matter if many countries owned commons, we only have to worry about s.Korea and the USA where the servers are (generally) situated. If that 'more information please' issue can be hosed down before the whole freaking board catches on fire that would be cool. Now play nice !! I'm watching the lot of you -(o)-(o)- Penyulap ☏ 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The rule is that files can't be kept if it can't be verified if they are free or not. As there is no section for South Korea at COM:TOO, we don't know anything about the threshold of originality there, so we can't tell whether it's as in Germany or whether it is as in the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not actually true for simple items. There is no need to prove something is free when it is too simple. I can have, or steal from the Internet, a picture of a triangle, and even if I confess I stole it, it's still not something that can be copyright, so we just keep it. It seems strange, but when you get into simple things, nobody can copyright the letter 'T' for example. Wihou i, you can wrie anymore, so they don't allow such things. Simple things are different to everything else, there are like, tens of thousands of files like that here, have a browse through Category:PD ineligible and see for yourself.
- The rule is that files can't be kept if it can't be verified if they are free or not. As there is no section for South Korea at COM:TOO, we don't know anything about the threshold of originality there, so we can't tell whether it's as in Germany or whether it is as in the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The statement "No evidence this is below the threshold of originality in South Korea." needs some supporting evidence, and "Many nations (even most) would consider this above the threshold." would matter if many countries owned commons, we only have to worry about s.Korea and the USA where the servers are (generally) situated. If that 'more information please' issue can be hosed down before the whole freaking board catches on fire that would be cool. Now play nice !! I'm watching the lot of you -(o)-(o)- Penyulap ☏ 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I just stole some File:Stolen Goo.png, to show I'll get away with it. When it's simple, the rules are different, still, that makes it pointy editing to make a point, flagrant copyvio, no permission, hmm, I don't know what else but I'll think of something. Penyulap ☏ 20:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- FFS, the stolen Goo has been protected, so that it's educational purpose can't be described. (triple-facepalm) Penyulap ☏ 21:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I just stole some File:Stolen Goo.png, to show I'll get away with it. When it's simple, the rules are different, still, that makes it pointy editing to make a point, flagrant copyvio, no permission, hmm, I don't know what else but I'll think of something. Penyulap ☏ 20:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Not only me, but five-year-old kid would be able to reproduce that. This is the most typical example of logo, which contains only simple geometrical shapes and text. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Looking at pages such as COM:TOO and COM:FOP, it seems that countries which have recently gained independence from another country often have a very similar law. For example, former French colonies often have FOP rules similar to French law whereas former British colonies often have FOP rules similar to British law. Looking at COM:FOP, I see that the copyright laws of Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China all use very similar formulations. The main exception is that the South Korean law is missing one word, thereby removing commercial FOP for architecture in South Korea, so I would guess that South Korea and the Republic of China simply copied the copyright law of Japan when they gained independence in 1945. Although there is a possibility that the law might have changed in any of the countries since that point, there is also the possibility that South Korea might use the same threshold of originality as Japan. In that case: maybe OK, maybe not. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- How does COM:FOP have anything to do with this? Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep Keep to what Fry mentioned. 99.229.41.79 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept - I find the Stefan4 argument that the copyright law in South Korea is likely similar to that of Japan plausible, rather than to expect some extreme copyright law. I don't believe this meets the threshold of originality in a majority of countries. The olympic logo does not originate from South Korea as far as I know, so the only remaining elements to form a copyright issue are the text: PyeongChang 2018, an asterisk and a square. Nothing eligible for copyright here - Jcb (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy 193.190.112.194 13:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The photo nominated for deletion shows a Graffiti on a house wall in Sardinia. Based on the abundance of Wikimedia Commons photos in the three categories
<Graffiti in Italy> + sub-categories: 88+ photos
<Murals in Italy> + sub-categories: 86 photos
<Murals in Sardinia> 12 photos
I assumed, that photos of Graffiti/Murales on house walls in Italy are not critical.
I would also assume, that Graffitis are typically not copyright protected objects.
-- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, I looked a bit in the internet about this topic (copyright for Graffiti in countries without FOP) and it seems to be complicated...
The USA is another country without FOP for art objects, and there, the topic is apparently controversial. Discussion points are, (1) is it creative enough to be art, (2) does it play a role, whether it is illegal or authorized graffiti and (3) if it is copyrighted art, who is the copyright holder? The property/wall owner or the artist?
If the creative level is high and the graffiti is authorized, it is apparently more likely that is is regarded as copyrighted art than illegal graffiti of low creativity. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Does Copyright Protect the Work of Graffiti Artists?
- Comment My understanding is that if it is graffiti (placed without authorization by owner of building or property), photos can be free licensed. However if it is a mural or other modern artwork authorized by the owner, the artist or their designee retains copyright, and the photo cannot be free licensed without the artist's explicit approval. This photo is described as both "graffiti" and "mural". Which is it? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no other information on the object than provided in the file description and EXIF data. The originator, the house owner and the circumstances, under which it was produced are not known to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete then. There is no indication that this is from a legal standpoint actually "graffiti" rather than a mural (it looks more like the latter). -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. No one seems to know whether this is a mural or grafitti FASTILY 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hara Castle
[edit]No FOP in the source country. The author of the statue is w:Seibo Kitamura (1884 – 1987) Undelete in 2058
Nightingale (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Katō Kiyomasa
[edit]No FOP in source country
- File:Hokoku jinja nagahama07s3200.jpg manufactured by a company, 一ノ瀬高級美術銅器製作所 in 1981
- File:KatoKiyomasa.jpg by Shizuo Takato 高藤 鎮夫（たかとう しずお） 1910 - 1988
- File:Kiyomasa1A.jpg by Shizuo Takato 高藤 鎮夫（たかとう しずお） 1910 - 1988
- File:Kiyomasakato honmyoji20080103.jpg by w:Seibo Kitamuraja:北村西望 1884 – 1987
- File:Nagoya Castle 2009 47.jpg by Shoji Ishiguro 石黒鏘二（いしぐろ しょうじ） 1935-
Nightingale (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Katō Kiyomasa
[edit]The statue of en:Katō Kiyomasa (ja:加藤清正) at the en:Nagoya Noh Theater (ja:名古屋能楽堂) was created by Shizuo Takato (ja:高藤鎮夫). [4] The year of his death is 1988. [5] No FoP in Japan for 3D works.
- File:Kato Kiyomasa Statue at Nagoya Nō Theatre - 1.jpg
- File:Kato Kiyomasa Statue at Nagoya Nō Theatre - 2.jpg
- File:Kato Kiyomasa Statue at Nagoya Nō Theatre - 3.jpg
- File:Nagoya Noh Theatre - panoramio.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Why? this is monument. not Art! KKPCW (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 14:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Katō Kiyomasa
[edit]The statue of en:Katō Kiyomasa (ja:加藤清正) at the en:Nagoya Castle (ja:名古屋城), named "清正公石曳きの像" (Statue of Kiyomasa's Stone Pulling), was created by Shoji Ishiguro (ja:石黒鏘二). [6] The year of his death is 2013. [7] No FoP in Japan for 3D works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC) This is not art! Monument. Why???????????? KKPCW (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
False authorship claims - likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Comment That's an interesting case. Havent't you been in situation, when some stranger gives you a camera and says: "Hey there, can you take a picture about me and my friends?" You take a picture, give the camera back, go away and never see that man again. You have made a photo, maybe have copyrights that you do not need ... and the camera-owner has no rights to use that photo? This seems unnatural. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is your private speculation that this happened like this. COM:OTRS can help. --High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, this is my private speculation. "Likely not the uploader's own work" is your private speculation. OTRS permission would be good. Taivo (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is your private speculation that this happened like this. COM:OTRS can help. --High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - please see 2013060110001854, which may be relevant. --UserB (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am no OTRS-member - I cannot read what is written in it. Besides, does this OTRS-ticket also apply for this image? --High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the ticket, the author authenticates the license for en:File:Russian_Soldiers_near_Tskhinvali,_August_23,_2008.jpg. (Note that User:Aljouf is the uploader of both that image and this one.) This image (File:PRo3 (1).JPG) is not addressed in the ticket. --UserB (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Does this ticket also apply this file we are talking about here? --High Contrast (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the ticket, the author authenticates the license for en:File:Russian_Soldiers_near_Tskhinvali,_August_23,_2008.jpg. (Note that User:Aljouf is the uploader of both that image and this one.) This image (File:PRo3 (1).JPG) is not addressed in the ticket. --UserB (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am no OTRS-member - I cannot read what is written in it. Besides, does this OTRS-ticket also apply for this image? --High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}