Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![23 File:"In Visual Living"- 2013-05-29 19-55.jpg](#File:"In_Visual_Living"-_2013-05-29_19-55.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Aroused_uncircumcised_glan_(right)_2013-05-26_16-38.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_bordered.png){kind=link}
_bright.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Savhñ 19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly out of scope, no need to let this stew any longer. Dschwen (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly out of scope, no need to let this stew any longer. Dschwen (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol Infrogmation (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
No evidence this would be own work; sourced to an unknown web page. Eleassar (t/p) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol, seen multiple places on web, some at higher res. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The subject isn't Cecco Angiolieri, but Luca Ghini, italian medician. Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Licensing. It was a test. Corso9001 (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted; prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright viol; higher res earlier copies seen multiple places on web (eg [1], [2]). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted copyviol, wider crop seen at [3] and multiple other places. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, troll image, prank photoshop of dubious copyright, insult file name and description. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:SCOPE: photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on... Eleassar (t/p) 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleting as part of upload cleanup and per nom russavia (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio (derivative work). I don't think we can say it's de minimis since the only interesting aspect of this picture IS the copyrighted material. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As per nom and as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I am the uploader of the image. It should be deleted because the image is a copyright violation from A Historical Atlas of South Asia by Joseph E. Schwartzberg.
Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the uploader of the image. It should be deleted because the image is a copyright violation from A Historical Atlas of South Asia by Joseph E. Schwartzberg Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
copyright infringement: the file is obviously copied from http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ehartmann/dga-incl-loes.pdf The Wikimedia user Ag2gaeh, who copied the file, used the file in the article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufriss . However, the right part of the image is neither needed nor referred to in the text of this article. Welt-der-Form (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am the author of http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ehartmann/dga-incl-loes.pdf and all the pictures within are made by my own and there is no other copyright holder. Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Permission sent to permission-en@wikipedia.org Ag2gaeh (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am the author of http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ehartmann/dga-incl-loes.pdf and all the pictures within are made by my own and there is no other copyright holder. Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Permission granted Sarah (talk) 01:01, 5 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)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
![00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/30#c-Mjrmtg-2013-05-30T00:11:00.000Z-File:"In_Visual_Living"-_2013-05-29_19-55.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
![02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/30#c-INeverCry-2013-06-06T02:44:00.000Z-File:"In_Visual_Living"-_2013-05-29_19-55.jpg){kind=link}
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not buying that this is COM:TOO Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see possibility to use that file. Do you? The file is not used and the uploader's other contribution is also presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free model. Eleassar (t/p) 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete without further notice.--Rude (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
blurry unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that the flag of the Municipality of Bled would be free in the source country. Per the same rationale as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flag of Ljubljana. Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Also, File:Bled 06 (5755996261).jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as per nom. russavia (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The wrong person is identified in the picture. Redundant to File:D. J. White in March 2013.jpg. Zagalejo (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I'm the uploader - totally cool with this. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Advertising or self-promotion. Fixertool (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I did not check that square code, but I suppose no educational value. Also, unused file with no description. Taivo (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unknown person, unused... Is it useful ? (NB : for some unknown reason, it was in the category "tennis" !) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work. See also w:File:David McCaig 1981.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this image is below the threshold of originality Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unknow, unused... Is it useful ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any use for that ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This image is possibly fair use, as it is the logo of the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation. Also, no evidence is provided for its PD license, so it may be a copyvio. Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Kid photoshops himself on the cover of Glamour to promote himself. No educational value, possible copyright infringements, etc.... Plus there's an ethical question of hosting an image of a minor next to text reading "How much SEX is enough?", and of using a living person's signature on something completely unrelated to them. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Self-promotion by a cross-wiki single-purpose account. No educational value. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This image is not under a CC-BY license on source. See image #35 at http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10422. As stated in dlr.de usage terms images not labeled as CC-BY, are free only for press, educational and personal use; commercial use requires permission. Thereby the current licensing on Commons is invalid. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
this is a copyvio, really Antemister (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Mauvaise illustration Expertisekb (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with this photo I took and contributed. User:GiryaGirl
- Keep I also do not see anything wrong, except bad quality, but the file is even used. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparent made-up logo without a clear purpose. A google image search suggests that at least part of the design may have been copied - uploader has a history of uploading copyright violations. CT Cooper · talk 13:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Probably above the threshold of originality. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo; questionable copyright status Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Stupid unused flag. Taivo (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
because i dont want it on here 173.189.65.120 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a valid reason, but there is a sculpture in this photo and USA has no freedom of panorama. Taivo (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Also:
Unused logo, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work, and does not fall under the jurisdiction of {{PD-GermanGov}}. Compare with {{PD German stamps warning}} Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A paiting of a 1962 died man, made, according decription page in 2007. Now given license is {{PD-art-70}}. This seems not to be valid. JuTa 11:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe this falls below COM:TOO Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution makes me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unidentified logo; questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unused, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; Tiny low res photo of object Commons has better images of with name and description of no obvious relevance. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a copyvio ? I mean a derivative work. If it is the case, File:Drobny.jpg should be deleted too. -- TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, we must delete both. They are both derivative works, photographer's permission only is not enough. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is clearly a screenshot from a television show -- it contains TV graphics. Green-eyed girl (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Neapolis 93 has also uploaded the following:
- File:Chris Jericho champion.png -- very unlikely any non-copyrighted image could be obtained from this angle. These others aren't quite so obvious, but they're all also from the same user within the last few days:
- File:Chris Jericho is performing the Walls of Jericho.png
- File:Jericho's debut.png
- File:When Y2J was the detentor of the WCW TV Championship.png
- File:Y2J as WCW Cruiseweight champion.png
- File:Y2j wcw.png
- File:Chris Jericho as undisputed champion.png
- Delete all. I presented his all other wrestling-related contributions also for deletion here. Taivo (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is an almost-duplicate File:Ketan meshram.jpg, which also needs to be deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Not uploader's original work: It's just resize of an existing logo. Nominating for deletion discussion instead of speedy deletion, in case someone wants to discuss Commons:Threshold of originality. (It's a U.S. work.) Closeapple (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The shield seems too difficult. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Advertising, out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unidentified logo; questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it's cropped from some video. It definitely wasn't taken today. Copyvio all over it for me. Dudek1337 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a newspaper scan; copyright not owned by image uploader if this is the case. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The uploader of this image has claimed "own work" on many images that were obviously the work of others. This is his last remaining upload that has not either been deleted or has a current DR. It is small and has no EXIF, but it does not show up in a Google search. Note that the previous images with this filename that have been deleted were not this image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I am the author of the Martin Sostre wikipedia article, former Chair of the Martin Sostre Defense Committee, and, at the same time, happen to be an oil painter. Inspired by the mug shot photo in the newspapers at the time Sostre was arrested, I painted the portrait of Martin Sostre that was deleted, despite the fact that I gave full copyright permission in the Commons when I uploaded it but it is possible the upload wizard I used asked questions that were not relevant that caused me to add the "Fair Use" license which, at the time, I did not know was not respected by deletionists trolling Wikipedia. I have issued request that this image be restored but do not have the Wikipedia geekdom savvy to know how to cross every "t" and dot every "i" needed to prevent its deletion. The current image on the page (which I believe is the subject of this discussion) is a photo of Martin softer thatI own and have in my possession and, again, I gave my full copyright permission for this photo to be used. I now understand that I need to prove I am who I say I am and am looking into ways to do so.
It seems Wikipedia is welcoming and grateful for authors to create and contribute to articles but does not give them the tools to make sure their images are not deleted and the system lacks notification in a timely fashion so we can prevent important images from being stripped away constantly making more work for the author, almost endless watching and surveillance of the page.
I need to add that I recently found a long list of deletions of both images and pdfs that were deleted. Perhaps this is the list of files Jim is talking about in regard to my claiming to be someone other than who I am. For example, I am also the author of the Buffalo Nine Wikipedia article and was, in fact, one of the actual Buffalo Nine Defendants. I am both owner and in part (there was a committee) creator of the Buffalo Nine pamphlet that was deleted. So because I had to change my name back in the 1980s from Gross to Ross to avoid FBI surveillance, it may be easy for deletionists to claim I am not the "Jerry Gross" described in the article when, in fact I am, although my legal name is now Jerry Ross. So when I uploaded the Buffalo Nine pamphlet file to the Commons I again may have in error used the "Fair Use" license but now need to re upload with just my own copyright permission as owner, as part-creator, and copyright holder. Again, please bear with me as I am on a learning curve here -- but my goal, and also the goal of Bruce Beyer who I have recently emailed about this deletion, that the pamphlet file be restored, along with all the other Buffalo Nine related images, because while I and others of the Buffalo Nine defendants who are still alive (we are now in our senior years) --- that it is important to us that at least we can leave a document trail for political anthropologists of the future, to be able to find and "unearth" digital evidence that this trial did actually happen and that we were on of the significant cases of the Vietnam era.
Which raises another issue for Wikipedia: namely what assistance the communuity gives to senior citizen authors and contributors to Wikipedia who may not be able to keep of with the energy and seemingly robotic persistence of the professional deletionists.
Pittore44 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Some of the other deletions should be restored on similar grounds: I created the Umberto Coromaldi page because of my interest in 19th & 20th century Risorimento painting in Rome. I created the oil sketch of Umberto Coromaldi from a particular photo in an art history book obtained in Italy (now lost() but the image is of the oil painting on cardboard that I created and then gave copyright permission for on Wikipedia Commons.
Ditto for the article on Pier Cesare Bori the Tolstoy scholar. We were good friends before his death caused by asbestos poisoning. I made an oil paint sketch of Pier in burnt sienna hue on a white stretch canvas. This was the image I uploaded to that page. I am the creator of the article, the owner of the painting, it is my photo of my own painting that I uploaded to the Commons, giving full copyright permission. This image was unceremoniously deleted just like all the others.
So you see by now, in each instance where I was supposedly presenting myself as some I was not, that actually I am Jerry Ross and am the creator, owner, uploader etc. of the image for which I have shared and given copyright permission through the Wikipedia commons and that, in fact, the entire list of files deleted was done so based on incorrect information as to my identity.
Pittore44 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- A) If the user is actually Jerry Ross, that must be confirmed with OTRS.
- B) "Inspired by the mug shot photo in the newspapers at the time Sostre was arrested, I painted the portrait of Martin Sostre" -- that makes this a derivative work of the newspaper photo and therefore a copyvio as suspected above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and statement from uploader who said he copied the image from a prior image which makes it a "derivative work". --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
fails COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio. No proof of authorization, for both the text and the illustrations. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe this falls below COM:TOO Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Work of US State not federal government. The NY State Senate claims copyright on the content of their website [4]. January (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted software.
The same photo is also available in much higher resolution on Nokia's website[5] so the photo was probably not taken by the uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.developer.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/E5-00/E5-00_full_front.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this emblem would be free in the source country. Eleassar (t/p) 08:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
By all means, remove it.--Rude (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The file description says "15. letalska brigada SV emblem on the side of Bell 212 helicopter" and therefore it cannot be taken as de minimis. Taivo (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Advertising or self-promotion. Fixertool (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution makes me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Cleary copyright violation. A copy of the original image can be found http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Josep+Guardiola+Barcelona+v+Espanyol+La+Liga+xTMREp25d5Bl.jpg and the page that links to it is http://twelvepointsports.blogspot.ca/2012/01/pep-guardiola-mad-man.html Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused and not useful userpage image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. They are very recent buildings.
- File:Port Towers.jpg
- File:Port Mall.jpg
- File:Port residence 1.jpg
- File:Port Residence 2.jpg
- File:Port Residence front view.jpg
- File:Port tower 17.jpg
- File:Port Tower 37.jpg
- File:Port Tower view from East.jpg
- File:Port towers and residence model.jpg
- File:Top of Port towers.jpg
- File:Trump Tower in AZ.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Port Towers.jpg demonstrates only half of building. It's not violation of legislation. Please, recover this file. Vita86 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo; questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Children's unused drawing Taivo (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
PNG extracted from an existing SVG: File:Rotterdam May 1940 1.svg; useless. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
watermark and uploader's history suggest it is a copyvio, but I could not find the image on google Isderion (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio... and is it useful for anything ? TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Trijnsteltalk 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a copyrighted content 91.57.75.223 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons scope; see w:User:Taylorprestonlawyers Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany not applicable for indoor shots. Leyo 23:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a copyright violation to me. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Look at permission row: copyrightprotected. So says the uploader. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a personal photo gallery Mjrmtg (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no evidence of copyright ownership - apparent copy from the internet Youreallycan (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Unaroused uncircumcised glan (left)-Aroused uncircumcised glan (right) 2013-05-26 16-38.jpg
[edit]-Aroused_uncircumcised_glan_(right)_2013-05-26_16-38.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Aroused_uncircumcised_glan_(right)_2013-05-26_16-38.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too bad quality, we have better porn here Taivo (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope: Commons is not the right place for hosting your own poetry. El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo; questionable copyright status Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, unidentified content, questionable copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation. Image is located at http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o122/nigbcn/xavi4.jpg and the page that links to it is at http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showthread.php?t=248093 Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
название не корректно China-tech (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader could neither delete nor rename his file, so he uploaded it with new name File:Узел зажима сваи.jpg. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
название не корректно China-tech (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
likely not own work as stated. JuTa 16:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader could neither delete nor rename his file, so he uploaded it with new name File:Маневрирование на строительной площадке.jpg. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
не могу изменить подпись под картинкой China-tech (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
не могу изменить название China-tech (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader could neither delete nor rename his file, so he uploaded it with new name File:Устройство СВУ.jpg. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This drawing is likely not own work of the uploader as stated. JuTa 11:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment The same user uploaded these images, which have the same style:
- File:د. على الراعى.jpg
- File:د. محمد عوض.jpg
- File:رؤساء تحرير مجلة المجلة من عام 1957 إلى عام 1971.jpg
- File:1حسين فوزى.jpg
- File:حسين فوزى.jpg
- File:Majalet AlMejalla.jpg
I suspect, that copyrighted photos are used, when making these images. Taivo (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
looks more than a scanned book cover then realy own work as stated. JuTa 11:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. the artwork author unknown, no free license provided
Nightingale (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Adonis Pretender
[edit]User Adonis Pretender re-uploaded these two files only some hours after deletion from Commons:
The old deletion request is here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Leo_cannes_13.jpg Taivo (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, he uploaded these files, which look like copyright violation, but I am not sure:
- File:Totti pour wiki.jpg
- File:Totti 2013.jpg
- File:Totti zetré.jpg
- File:Totti milede zetré.jpg. Taivo (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Eriang87
[edit]User Eriang87 has uploaded a lot of logos and claimed to be copyright holder of them all. Here I list these ones, which in my opinion surpass threshold of originality:
- File:Bernama tv.jpg
- File:KUIS2.jpg
- File:Logo Nama Insaniah.png
- File:Logo pbb.jpg
- File:Logo PDIP.jpg
- File:LOGO UNITEN2.jpg
- File:Logo Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).png
- File:MBAS seal.jpg
- File:Mbi seal.png
- File:Old time dotCom logo.gif
- File:Sapp sabah.png
- File:Spdp logo.jpg
- File:Tm.gif
- File:Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN).gif
- File:Utp-logo2.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
They all have small resolution and it is possible, that none of them is self-made. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Lobotras
[edit]User Lobotras has been blocked for 6 months for uploading copyright violations. He has uploaded, amongst others, these two files:
- File:Поющий фонтан на набережной.jpg (new fountain, author Konstantin Potehhin)
- File:Megamallinrostov.jpg (new building).
There is no freedom of panorama in Russia. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Mobile upload photos without camera EXIF data. This is especially problematic given CMC++'s history of false claims of authorship and other copyright problems. Recommend deletion as a precaution.
- File:Hong Kong Governor house 2013-05-23 06-37.jpg
- File:Equation from someone 2013-05-23 06-35.jpg
- File:Black Friday 2013-05-23 06-27.jpg
- File:Kangaroo fans 2013-05-23 06-26.jpg
- File:Casino 2013-05-23 06-22.jpg
- File:National Day 2012 2013-05-23 06-18.jpg
- File:When Mr Sun meet with Ms Moon witness by rainbow and cloud 2013-05-23 06-15.jpg
Senator2029 07:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
copyright violations or out of project scope
- File:赵式芝照于2014年3月 2014-05-11 21-17.jpg
- File:Picture taken at Hong Kong IT Expo Fair during April 2014 2014-05-05 19-11.jpg
- File:Dr Cecil Chao 2014-05-03 23-38.jpg
- File:Mun Chung taken at Ion Orchard, Singapore during Christmas Eve 2013 2014-04-29 12-32.jpg
Didym (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doraemon1997926 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted 3D art works. No FOP in Japan.
Nightingale (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
copy from http://www.newcandies.jp/ ; no verifiable evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder
Nightingale (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted character "Nishikokun" http://www.nishikokun.com/ ;Copyvio
Nightingale (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted character; not acceptable to Commons
- File:かりんちゃん01.jpg character of Tono city ja:河童
- File:河童立て札01.jpg unknown author, no free license provided
Nightingale (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, better version available Antemister (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
low quality, better version availble Antemister (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
not more than a duplicate of the svg Antemister (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unsourced! it:Armoriale delle colonie italiane shows a different but similar image, and provides a source Antemister (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
duplicate of PNG Antemister (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
a privately created image that is not an official state symbol, thus not in use Antemister (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low-quality duplicate Antemister (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Unused file, redundant to File:Flag of Ethiopia (1897–1974).svg ColorfulSmoke (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep — As before, the existence of a new and superior vector version to an old low-quality raster version, does not render the old version redundant and worthy of deletion. --Oren neu dag (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - As a reviewer, I tend to delete crappy resolution images when they're replaced with better quality. But, I can't touch this one until ColorfulSmoke replaces its use on all projects. Ping me when you do. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low quality duplicate Antemister (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
rather low quality, better version are available Antemister (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
see SVG version Antemister (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
SVG is better Antemister (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is not a reason for deletion. Just mark it with Template:Superseded, Template:Vector version available or some other template that is appropriate for this file. /Ö 09:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
not more than a duplicate of the SVG Antemister (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
not the flag of puntland, really Antemister (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
this is not an official roundell, but a private creation. Out of scope Antemister (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
a privately created image that is not an official state symbol, thus not in use Antemister (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
what to with that flag, as we have File:Flag of Somaliland.svg, drawn according to government specifications? Antemister (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted:Natuur12 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use svg version Antemister (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use the svg version Antemister (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svh version Antemister (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replaced... Antemister (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
no, the correct TANU flag is here:http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/tz%7D.html#tanu Antemister (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replaced... Antemister (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replaced... Antemister (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
not in use anymore Antemister (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replaced... Antemister (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
_bordered.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_bordered.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
_bordered.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
_bordered.png){kind=link}
_bright.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_bright.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
_bright.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
_bright.png){kind=link}
_bright.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
replaced... Antemister (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
use the svg Antemister (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
such a flag did not exist! A similar proposal was published in 1914, but never adopted. Wonder where that image is from Antemister (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
now replaced by the correct image Antemister (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
duplicate... Antemister (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
duplicate of svg Antemister (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been superceded and is not entirely accurate Rebel Redcoat (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Krita as a software is freely licensed. However the bigger portion of this screenshot is taken by a certain graphic, that I doubt to be freely licensed as well. Masur (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright is not by US government but Warner Brothers-Seven Arts (or successor) per Maurer, Maurer , ed. (1982) [1969] Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (reprint ed.), Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, p. 107 ISBN: 0-405-12194-6. OCLC: 72556. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo; questionable copyright status (see COM:TOO#Australia) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This is categorized as Australian club, but actually it seems to me, that this is error and the club is situated in Serbia. The uploader has Serbian name and Australian clubs do not use cyrillic font. en:FC Red Star is situated in Serbia, Belgrad. Anyway, whatever you decide, the same decision should be made for File:Grb 150-x-150-white-background.png. Taivo (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY 20:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non vector duplicate of File:Oxford University Boat Club.svg Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 20:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Vila Zora, modern architecture.[6] Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Question Eleassar, the link you gave gives us a date of 1853 for the building, is this correct? russavia (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The top floor was built after WWII, and the mural was painted in 1956-57. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep only a small part is copyrighted -> per COM:DM --Miha (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Very unlikely DM: Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not more than a duplicate of teh svg Antemister (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The png was uploaded in 2008, the svg was uploaded in 2013. The svg is a copy of this image, not the other way around. 89.239.209.112 20:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Previously published at http://parssea.org/?p=603 so the own work claim which was added by an IP is dubious. Can't read the text, so I don't know whether it is copyrightable or not. Stefan4 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- An IP address added {{PD-Iran}}. Can someone who can read the text tell whether this is correct? {{PD-Iran}} requires that the author died more than 30 years ago whereas {{PD-self}} requires that the author was alive when the file was uploaded, which was less than 30 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP IT . IT IS A COVER PAGE OF A BOOK 1950s PUBLISHED FIRST IN SAUDI ARABIA AND NOW IT IS PUBLISHED IN PUBLIC WEBLOGS AND PUBLIC WEBSITE IN IRAN AND EGYPT AND DO NOT HAVE COPY RIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs) 2013-06-01T08:04:33 (UTC)
- If it is a book from Saudi Arabia, then it can only be kept if the author died before 1954. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- religious books in Saudi Arabia- iran - Egypt don't have any copy right.you can find picture of many Saudi-Iranian books in internet free. i am sure the above foto don't have copy right.[7]
the total text of the book is online[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs) 2013-06-04T16:13:29 (UTC)
- Please show that there is no copyright for religious books. COM:CRT doesn't say anything about special copyright rules for religious books. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 20:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
this is just an autotraced version of the source file. We do not need such SVGs Antemister (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Put a cleanup/bad svg tag on it and wait for improvements. Fry1989 eh? 03:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
not more than a duplicate of the SVG Antemister (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong argument. The SVG is a duplicate of PNG. There is a notification, PNG was the source for SVG. --Patrick (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This coat of arms has incorrect colors, I replaced it with a valid svg image File:Baktalórántháza címere.svg, and this one is not used anymore. Gonoszcsiga (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Description: "Associated Press photo of Karen Dawn and Rosie Turkey, taken November 2012 by Josh Garrett." If the photo was made by the Associated Press, then it is probably not own work. Stefan4 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stefan, Sorry I was unclear in my description, but I'm new to Wiki. This photo was taken by me, Josh Garrett, then published by the Associated Press with my permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbgarrett (talk • contribs) 2013-06-01T21:08:30 (UTC)
- For photos first published outside Wikipedia, please follow the process indicated at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If this photograph is by "unknown" (according to the source), how do we know it's released as cc-by-sa (or, for that matter, to whom to attribute it?) This needs a better explanation of proper attribution. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This photo was found on the English Wikipedia and was marked for transfer. It has been transferred using the software "For the Common Good". This photo was found on http://www.world66.com and it's copyright policy (http://www.world66.com/about/copyright_policy) states that all the works are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence. Please make the necessary checks. Thanks, Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Even when an image is marked for transfer, sometimes it is marked in error by a human, or it is marked by a bot. In this case, it is the uploader at English Wikipedia's fault for uploading it (if we must go assigning blame), but that doesn't change the fact that there are license problems with this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This photo was found on http://www.world66.com and it's copyright policy (http://www.world66.com/about/copyright_policy) states that all the works are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence.Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously. But the problem is we can't follow the cc license because world66 failed to include the author. And we can't just guess, because they have many different authors. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This photo was found on http://www.world66.com and it's copyright policy (http://www.world66.com/about/copyright_policy) states that all the works are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence.Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Even when an image is marked for transfer, sometimes it is marked in error by a human, or it is marked by a bot. In this case, it is the uploader at English Wikipedia's fault for uploading it (if we must go assigning blame), but that doesn't change the fact that there are license problems with this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing author information: a cc license is not valid without authorhip details FASTILY 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo; questionable copyright status (see COM:TOO#Australia) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Waaaay below the threshold of originality. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Definietly ok in the US, but Australian copyright is far stricter when it comes to TOO. Unless we have clear, written proof that this is acceptable on Commons under a pd-license, we cannot hos it FASTILY 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
not more than a duplicate of tHE svg Antemister (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection now there is an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as source for the SVG file. /Ö 09:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Superseded files should not be deleted. --Ras67 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Not valid map...a lot ofmistakes on it Gigillo83 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It's in use -- you can tag it {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}, but we cannot delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not valid map...a lot of mistakes on it and not used Gigillo83 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Closed early as keep. See above and please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Mappa piena di errori e dal contributo non corrispondente alla descrizione Friedrichstrasse (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ho già provato 2volte a cancellarla ma le cime qui sopra continuano a non capire che è sbagliata...spero tu abbia più fortuna di me...:) --Gigillo83 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Now that it is no longer in use, this is a valid request. Since the author has requested three times that we delete it, I think we should. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Courtesy delete -FASTILY 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
in fact not more than aduplicate of the svg Antemister (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection now there is an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and mark with a fitting template. It is source for the svg file. /Ö 09:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: keep as source for svg FASTILY 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality, superceded by this. Yikrazuul (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The proposed replacement appears to illustrate a different set of descriptors, or at least needs a key to explain what the colors mean (in which case it may actually but a suitable replacement). DMacks (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This picture is not useful, we even don't know whether the Ti or the Tol plasmid is mentioned. In that form no educational value. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no clear consensus to delete FASTILY 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
fails COM:SCOPE (vanity sports team) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The team has an article on Wiki-es since 2010 - es:Black_dragones.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: small blurry image, out of scope FASTILY 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So was this logo created by the school, or by the uploader? The description is leaves the impression that the license tag is wrong. See COM:CB#Trademarks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This file was not found on the internet and is not being used in the school's website. This logo has been created solely by the author (reason being that it has not been found on the internet). The West Central Area School District has mostly discontinued it's usage. Please check the file. Thanks, Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader and are the author or have been given permission to upload the file to Commons, then please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
|
This file has been superseded by Кобзарь (1876).djvu. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent. Reason to use the other file: "The other file has the OCR layer"
|
|
Deleted: Speedied as a scaled down dupe FASTILY 20:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Melonbooks
[edit]Copyrighted mascot character of Melonbooks; http://www.melonbooks.co.jp/ All rights reserved
Nightingale (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Changed to Neutral まぁここまで熱心に削除を提案なさる理由というのも量りかねるところなのですが、「Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hachimaru」などを見た限りでは、こちらも同様のケースですし削除になるのでしょう。とりあえず、この写真の場合にはどうしても主観が入ってしまうので、Keepは取り下げ、Neutralに変更します。--Facial expression (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Changed to
- I don't really know what to do here. Toys are generally not copyrightable in Japan as Japan doesn't provide copyright protection for utilitarian objects (see e.g. this court ruling which found w:Furby to be utilitarian), so I'd assume that this doesn't violate the copyright law of Japan, as the clothing is similar in purpose to a giant toy. However, there's the issue with the copyright status in the United States. USA doesn't provide copyright protection for utilitarian objects either, but the words "utilitarian object" are defined differently. See for example this court ruling where a few Japanese toys were found to be protected by copyright although they were utilitarian in Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I read those decisions in courts for the first time, but I doubt the clothing can be applied to utilitarian objects. Those judgments tell us whether toys are copyrightable depends on their function such as speaking words and changing form. But the design of the clothing is usually found on their character goods like these. So I think the main purpose of the design is the display, not the clothing.--Facial expression (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
w:University of Hassan II Casablanca tells that the university was established in 1975, so the buildings might be from that age. No evidence that the architects have been dead for at least 50 years.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
the file have uploaded by the permission of the university .Mr mernicy public relation. so there are no copy right or complain.
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 20:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This logo has marginal creative content. If the company wishes to release copyright, that would be great to have on record, otherwise the marginal elements of design might be sufficient to deleted under the precautionary principle. Fæ (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- weak Keep, borderline case, but seems too few originality here. Taivo (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-text? FASTILY 07:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
In an e-mail to OTRS Template:OTRS ticket, a representative of the The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts claims that this image is not PD. The text of the e-mail follows:
The image that Wikipedia has posted and labeled as "public domain" for "Codex Beratinus 0011b.jpg" is most certainly not public domain. That image belongs to the National Archive of Albania and was photographed by The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. See http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_043/GA_043_0011b.jpg. Thus, kindly (a) give proper credit for the photograph or (b) remove from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Proper credit entails acknowledging two institutions: (1) National Archive of Albania as the copyright holder and (2) the website of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, http://www.csntm.org.
I understand Wikipedia's position that this photograph is public domain because it's object is a two-dimensional piece; however, the manuscript in this photograph is unquestionably a three-dimensional object. It thus does not fall into the 'public domain' as a photograph of a two-dimensional object. Notice the depth in the manuscript itself and the frame which cannot be removed by cropping because the glare marks in/on the frame. Notice also that the title of the image on Wikipedia's page retains the remnants of CSNTM's numbering system.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This does not appear to be a clear-cut case, so opening a discussion. ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The photo's object is unquestionably two-dimensional object. For example, no shadows here. But we can credit the museum as photographer anyway. Taivo (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Please Delete. Because NASA has deleted the source page. The page deleted due export regulations. As NTRS was for a while offline.--Uwe W. (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Uwe W. (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason to delete. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: NASA removed the source page, and they must have a good reason for doing so. If the reason is per copyright, then we better not be hosting this FASTILY 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
private artwork Antemister (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Flickr user's own work. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, OK for Flickr, but not for Commons.--Antemister (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No realistically educational use. Until Canada and Somalia are going to make a confoderate state. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MoldovaFootball4ever (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Janko Tumbasevic.jpg
- File:Igor costrov.jpg
- File:Milos Krkotic.jpg
- File:Andrei Cojocari.jpg
- File:Ghenadie Orbu.jpg
- File:Eduard grosu.jpg
- File:Adama guira.jpg
- File:Dumitru popovici.jpg
- File:2536 ilescu.jpg
- File:Eugen matiughin.jpg
- File:4165 erochin.jpg
- File:4024 nemerenco.jpg
- File:334 sq dragovozov.jpg
- File:6373 sq lapushenko.jpg
- File:3570 stoleru.jpg
- File:891 cerga2.jpg
- File:410 mihaliov 0007s 0000 mihaliov1.jpg
- File:Dsc 0116 4113 vasile jardan.jpg
- File:2769 posmac.jpg
- File:VerisDraganesti.JPG
- File:Veris.JPG
- File:Riscani1.jpg
- File:Riscani.jpg
- File:Orhei 1 medium 1242656890.jpg
- File:Orheiul care-mi place.jpg
- File:Complexul sportiv raional 4 20100628 1429876607.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Странный Вы, ладно где нет данных о камере, но вот фотографии, где явно собственная работа. Плюс у человека может быть несколько фотоаппаратов, в нынешнее время это не проблема. Мне кажется часть фотографий необходимо перепроверить, что-то удалить, а что-то оставить.File:VerisDraganesti.JPG, File:Veris.JPG. --Kodru (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Questionable copyright status: missing exif, multiple cameras, all web resolution FASTILY 07:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MoldovaFootball4ever (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-free logos of some Moldovan football clubs. Not "Own work" and CC,
- File:FC Codru Lozova.png
- File:FC UNGHENI.png
- File:Fk Alga Tiraspol.jpg
- File:Noroc Nimoreni.jpg
- File:ARF Criuleni Logo.png
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
XB-70 Compression lift
[edit]
Please Delete. Because NASA has deleted the source page. The page was deleted due export regulations. As NTRS was for a while offline.--Uwe W. (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason. Both files are used. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: NASA removed the source page, and they must have a good reason for doing so. If the reason is per copyright, then we better not be hosting these FASTILY 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This is another of KVDP's mistakes. Aside from poor quality, as drawn it is dangerous and would be illegal in the USA and, I suspect, everywhere else.
Also:
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the sketch as now superfluous to the SVG version. Also remove from most of the WP articles. This is simplistic for a drawing of European residential solar PV (no isolators, no fusing, and the metering is unclear) but it's not "wrong". However as an example of residential supplementary PV it's heavily dependent on the grid system and this drawing has no place in articles about off grid use.
- I'm not seeing James' dire warnings of danger and illegality - perhaps he could clarify? This diagram is perhaps over-simple, but it is (crudely) how things are in Europe these days, and they're very common.
- The notion of trackers is of course nonsense and just the usual KVDP exuberance-over-reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Under many, maybe all, of the different electrical codes in force in the USA, local power sources -- generators, windmills, PV -- must be isolated to prevent them from feeding the grid in the event that there is a grid power outage. There are two problems -- the safety of electrical workers repairing the outage and that the local source would see what was essentially a dead short from all the other loads upstream on the grid. That would bring the local source down and defeat the grid independence that the local source would otherwise bring.
- Aside from that, the drawing has other problems -- the inverter would certainly not be placed somewhere high in the building, but would be adjacent to the main electrical panel and the grid entrance. And, as you say, there must be appropriate fuses or circuit breakers.
- I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the USA we have a lot of do it yourself electricians -- it's even legal in a few states -- and giving them a drawing that will lead to a variety of problems is a serious mistake. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isolators are the same in Europe. However are they a requirement to illustrate on a simple block diagram at this level? Actually the real safety requirement (a manual isolator needing an operator to isolate it) is that the inverter has to be a grid-tie inverter – it doesn't run unless there's already a mains supply to it from the grid. Another reason why this grid-tied installation has no relevance for the off-grid articles to which KVDP has added it.
- Inverters are normally mounted in the roof space (European houses are short on basement usines). As roof spaces get hot in the Summer, this is why the inverters fail at only five years old. If you know what you're doing, you don't install them in the roofspace. This is though where most of them end up. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the USA we have a lot of do it yourself electricians -- it's even legal in a few states -- and giving them a drawing that will lead to a variety of problems is a serious mistake. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep While I know nothing about the topic at hand, I do not think that an instructional drawing being potentially dangerous should be a valid reason for deletion, since e.g. it could be educationally useful to show what not to do. But it may be a reason to update the file description page with a warning to reflect this, and it may be a reason not to use it in all contexts it is currently used on Wikimedia projects. darkweasel94 22:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This is another of KVDP's mistakes. Aside from poor quality, as drawn it is dangerous and would be illegal in the USA and, I suspect, everywhere else.
Also:
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the sketch as now superfluous to the SVG version. Also remove from most of the WP articles. This is simplistic for a drawing of European residential solar PV (no isolators, no fusing, and the metering is unclear) but it's not "wrong". However as an example of residential supplementary PV it's heavily dependent on the grid system and this drawing has no place in articles about off grid use.
- I'm not seeing James' dire warnings of danger and illegality - perhaps he could clarify? This diagram is perhaps over-simple, but it is (crudely) how things are in Europe these days, and they're very common.
- The notion of trackers is of course nonsense and just the usual KVDP exuberance-over-reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Under many, maybe all, of the different electrical codes in force in the USA, local power sources -- generators, windmills, PV -- must be isolated to prevent them from feeding the grid in the event that there is a grid power outage. There are two problems -- the safety of electrical workers repairing the outage and that the local source would see what was essentially a dead short from all the other loads upstream on the grid. That would bring the local source down and defeat the grid independence that the local source would otherwise bring.
- Aside from that, the drawing has other problems -- the inverter would certainly not be placed somewhere high in the building, but would be adjacent to the main electrical panel and the grid entrance. And, as you say, there must be appropriate fuses or circuit breakers.
- I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the USA we have a lot of do it yourself electricians -- it's even legal in a few states -- and giving them a drawing that will lead to a variety of problems is a serious mistake. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isolators are the same in Europe. However are they a requirement to illustrate on a simple block diagram at this level? Actually the real safety requirement (a manual isolator needing an operator to isolate it) is that the inverter has to be a grid-tie inverter – it doesn't run unless there's already a mains supply to it from the grid. Another reason why this grid-tied installation has no relevance for the off-grid articles to which KVDP has added it.
- Inverters are normally mounted in the roof space (European houses are short on basement usines). As roof spaces get hot in the Summer, this is why the inverters fail at only five years old. If you know what you're doing, you don't install them in the roofspace. This is though where most of them end up. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the USA we have a lot of do it yourself electricians -- it's even legal in a few states -- and giving them a drawing that will lead to a variety of problems is a serious mistake. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep While I know nothing about the topic at hand, I do not think that an instructional drawing being potentially dangerous should be a valid reason for deletion, since e.g. it could be educationally useful to show what not to do. But it may be a reason to update the file description page with a warning to reflect this, and it may be a reason not to use it in all contexts it is currently used on Wikimedia projects. darkweasel94 22:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:LuiseLui
[edit]None of these images was created by the uploader, User:LuiseLui. Most of them have an explicit copyright notice in the EXIF from a third party photographer. There is no evidence of permission. This applies to all of the images below. There are additional problems with eight of them, as noted.
Most of them show art that is under copyright. Except as noted below, I think they are all in Austrian art galleries, where I think Austrian FOP applies.
- File:Ooekv performance leere huelle fuelle elfriede 2012.jpg
- File:Ooekv Paszkiewicz Eder 2013.JPG
- File:Happenstance Galerie Thiele 2012 Aufbau Tanzprobe5.jpg
- File:Happenstance Galerie Thiele 2012 Aufbau Tanzprobe6.jpg
- File:Happenstance Galerie Thiele 2012 Aufbau Tanzprobe9.jpg
- File:Happenstance Galerie Thiele 2012 Aufbau Tanzprobe8.jpg
- File:Happenstance Galerie Thiele 2012 Aufbau Tanzprobe4.jpg
- File:Heinz Baumueller Ausstellungsansicht Schnee von Morgen 2009.jpg
- File:Portrait Heinz Baumüller bei der Ausstellung "Schnee von Morgen" 2009.jpeg
- File:Heinz Baumueller Portrait 2 2009.jpg
In the following cases it is not clear whether Austrian FOP applies or not.
- File:Heinz Baumueller "Bildende Geometrie 1983".jpg
- File:Heinz Baumueller "Babylonische Schreibmaschine" 2003-07.jpg
- File:Heinz Baumueller "1 Kanal TV, 1986".jpg
- File:Heinz Baumüller "DIE KRÖNUNG" Homage á Johannes Stüttgen 2010.jpg
The following show works which are not permanent, so FOP does not apply. The performance art costumes are not utilitarian and therefore have a copyright of their own.
- File:Theater der Toene 1984 1.tif
- File:Theater der Toene 1984 2.tif
- File:Luegen haben kurze Beine 1984.tif
In the case of File:Social Gold Banana - Angerbauer-Goldhoff 2013.tif there is also the question of what educational value it may have.
In summary, all of them have no evidence of permission from the photographer. Seven of them also may infringe on the artists' copyrights. One may be out of scope for having no educational value. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Please also examine photos on de:Wikipedia/Oberösterreichischer Kunstverein. These photos are not created by LuiseLui.Lexikonist (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:LuiseLu
[edit]Here we go again.
These are apparently taken from a book. There is no evidence of permission. In addition, they show performance art costumes that are not utilitarian and, therefore, have their own copyright, so they infringe on that copyright.
- File:Theater der Toene Poestling 04.jpg
- File:Theater der Toene Poestling 02.jpg
- File:Theater der Toene Poestling 03.jpg
- File:Theater der Toene Poestling 01.jpg
These show a work of art inside a gallery, therefore not covered by Austrian FOP. The EXIF shows (c) Beni Altmüller. No evidence of permission from either the photographer or the artist.
- File:Beni Altmueller Wir sind unterwegs 2001 1.jpg
- File:Beni Altmueller Wir sind unterwegs 2001 2.jpg
Therefore, in all six cases we have two problems -- no permission for the images themselves and no permission for the copyrighted works which are shown. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- postpone deletion. I had an email conversation yesterday with LuiseLui and he/she understood the concerns and promised to care to get the necessary permissions and the necessary OTRS tickets. But not immediately. So please give the user a bit of time before deleting. (see also the discussion page, German alas). The user was in contact with Beni Altmüller before and got a spoken permission (which of cause is not what we need, but OTRS tickets should follow.). regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unless Altmüller is both the photographer of all six images and the creator of the art works and costumes shown in them, a license from him solves only half the problem. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- postpone deletion E-Mail-Gespräch mit Herzi Pinki und Versuch, die Anliegen zu verstehen: werde mich um die erforderlichen Genehmigungen kümmern und die notwendigen OTRS Tickets nachreichen. Aber nicht sofort, denn das ist enormer Aufwand, also bitte gebt mir ein wenig Zeit vor dem Löschen. Selbstverständlich wurde das "courtesy by" eingeholt, schriftlich! Die Künstler besitzen die Rechte über das copyright. Ich bin in Kontakt mit Beni Altmüller, Heinz Baumüller, Galerie Thiele und selbstverständlich bekam ich die Erlaubnis zugesprochen (die Bilder sind alle schon in diversen Medien veröffentlicht wie vertreten!)
Die Bilder im OÖ. Kunstverein sind Eigentum des OÖ. Kunstvereins und wurden von der Galerieleitung selbst aufgenommen und stehen auch auf der Homepage des OÖ. Kunstvereins. ps: wenn ich, LuiseLui die Bilder uploade, und das Urheberrecht, den Autor und die Lizenz dokumentiere - bin ich selbstverständlich nicht der Ersteller der Bilder (LuiseLui) (talk)
Info OTRS contact has been made in ticket:2013053110006438, uploader request more time to complete permission process. --Krd 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been nearly half a month since the uploader requested more time to complete the permissions process. These files can be restored if the uploader completes the permissions process -FASTILY 22:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)