Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Obvious copyright violation (see one source here for example). I am starting this deletion discussion to draw attention to the user's other uploads, which should probably be reviewed in light of this particular upload. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This is a derivative image and Lebanon has no Freedom of Panorama Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy - copyvio Lymantria (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong test, sorry! Joaosodre (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong test, sorry! Joaosodre (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, mistake, deletion promptly requested by author. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Cape verde music
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 13:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion / Copyright violation Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Fué subido por error y no es de mi autoría. Yo solamente subo archivos propios Arianza1 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, upload mistake, prompt request by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
movie still, copyvio? Mjrmtg (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I am at a lose as to why this image is 'free', the software to produce this screenshot might be free but the images within are not. The copyright are not own by google nor the free software. Also the screenshot does certainly contain copyright-eligible parts as each and everyone of those photos are copyrighted. Correct me if I am wrong. Michaela den (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete, obvious {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyviol. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
movie still, copyvio? Mjrmtg (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes Denniss (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
like a screenshot of video Ray Garraty (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This Photo only of TV. Photography of Tv by myselfe. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- So... Commons:Screenshots: «Screenshots are subject to the copyright of the displayed work, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program. Thus, screenshots must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless all content in them are under some free license.»--Ray Garraty (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Italy has no freedom of panorama DS (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Pavillon de Venise (53ème Biennale de Venise) (3755598040).jpg and File:Pavillon de Venise (53ème Biennale de Venise) (3755169769).jpg. DS (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom and as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 13:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion / copyright violation Steinsplitter (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 22:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Size doesn't matter, JaviP96!
At least not here. I agree with the nomination, very likely not own work but taken from a website. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion / copyright violation Steinsplitter (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket for this file does not contain permission from the author; it is simply a conversation from the OTRS team explaining to someone how to obtain permission without further response. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Response by Dr. Blofeld on the Wikipedia deletion nomination: "I saw the OTRS ticketing through myself and sent an email to the commons containing the permission. The Paraguayan granted us use of the images of Caacupe under GFDL I think." —innotata 02:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I have looked at the OTRS exchange; if there was explicit permission from the rights holder, it was never clearly articulated in any email archived by OTRS. This needs to be corrected if the photo is to be kept. -Pete F (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No permissions: at least 3 OTRS agents (including me) have checked the ticket with the same conclusion. PierreSelim (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The Flickr user is listed as a bad author, so this image might not be free. Chrishmt0423 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Chris I fixed the URL it is actually http://www.flickr.com/photos/4x4paper/8496403346/in/photostream/ Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- That didn't fix the problem. The FlickreviewR bot still says the image is problematic.Chrishmt0423 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, unless there is something in the long (Spanish?) description to indicate this is more than a mere personal photo. -Pete F (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused low resolution personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - was used only for vandalism; has no meaningful educational purpose. TortoiseWrath (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
low resolution unused photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Per COM:PRP: 3 uploads by user = 2x copyvio. Gunnex (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright notice in EXIF data. Eeekster (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- speedy Delete per nomination, almost certain copyright violation -Pete F (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Blurry, low quality, not in use, see Category:Sciuridae Gunnex (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Suspected Spamming, please refer to please refer to the discussion page of files uploaded by the same user Altt311 (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Very poor quality: {{BadJPG}}, pixelated. Not used anywhere/replaced by File:Structure of Xylitol.png. Leyo 07:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Considering User talk:Angelogbmg (+35 copyvio marks, including the recent ones), per COM:PRP: unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This packaging is not PD-simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I took the photo.--EEIM (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's rather irrelevant. If you take a photo of, say, a movie poster, you don't suddenly hold copyright to that movie poster. And if the poster is visible, then the creator of it has rights. Read Commons:Derivative works. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nomination, this is a derivative work of the packaging which is almost certainly covered by copyright. -Pete F (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The embellishment looks to not be PD-SIMPLE to me -mattbuck (Talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
just words and squares.--EEIM (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- They're not very square, and if you argue along those lines then every digital image is just lots and lots of squares. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free packaging -mattbuck (Talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely above the threshold of originality in the UK. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
coypright http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/nuevo-san-mames-the-new-home-of-athletic-club-bilbao-progressing-well/nuevo-san-mames-01/ Remy34 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Original painting is likely still copyrighted and Italy has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Original painting is probably still copyrighted and Italy has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Image seems to be copied from image #58 at http://www.autobild.de/bilder/grosser-preis-von-malaysia-pre-events-3932095.html#bild57, which has a watermark in the upper left corner. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a non-free logo. Looks to pass the threshhold of originality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work of non-free image/publication. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Too small to be useful, other maps exist (on this site). Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free university logo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free school logo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work of non-free image/publication. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The monument was created in 1995 and the author does not appear to have given his or her permission. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is anything known about the sculptor of this statue? --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
not used, no description 91.66.152.24 11:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
not used, no description 91.66.152.24 11:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently built and the architect does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep, chapel looks too simple to me, to be copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Túrelio. INeverCry 00:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The uploader admitted in the description that this is a copyright violation because there is no freedom of panorama in Greece. An image of the statue has already been deleted once. Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The monument was recently created and the author does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems a photographic report, not an own work. JaviP96 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 12:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 12:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As the content of this image is presented as an installation, it has to be assumed as copyrighted original work. As the image was shot indoors at an exhibition in Italy, no FOP exemption is applicable and the image violates the copyright of the original artist. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Same problem with File:Robert Dragot "6080K310i" at the 53rd. Venice Biennale.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently built and the architect does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Unfortunately, the same applies to all files in Category:Cathedral Marija Majka Crkve (Mostar). Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, with regret, but obviously a copyrightable and still copyrighted building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently built and the architect does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Unfortunately, the same applies to all files in Category:Cathedral Marija Majka Crkve (Mostar). Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, evidently a recent building. Image not usable without permission from architect. --Túrelio (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To small and noisy to be an own work. JaviP96 13:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To small and noisy to be an own work. JaviP96 13:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To small and noisy to be an work. JaviP96 13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Author does not exist. Not own work. I doubt the licence. Jahobr (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work, unlikely the campaign published it under a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
notability? probably not own work as well Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete orphan, uncat since last year, unhelpfully generic description; no indication of in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Work of the sculptor Janez Pirnat (1932-). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 16:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- The sculptor died in 2021. His works will be public domain in 2092. --TadejM (t/p) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
A HR image which was used by another site at an ealier date can be found here. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
derivative of the photos at the wall. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Per watermark obviously NOT own work. Copied from http://fineartamerica.com/featured/august-f-moebius-1790-1868-granger.html and eventually added the frame. Image itself might be PD, but uploader is surely not the autor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
We received a complaint from the author of this work, see OTRS ticket 2013060710005411. Jcb (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the picture originates from here, from sometime before February 2013. Froztbyte (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP: considering 6 uploads by user = 5 copyvios. Gunnex (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
does this fall under FOP? It seems to have been taken in the Vienna tramway museum (description+geotag), but is/was this exposed permanently and visible from a public place? Seems a case of COM:PCP. darkweasel94 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the picture originates from this article. Larger version of the image is located here. Froztbyte (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Per high res and exif it might be the original but... not exactly: The file is cropped (watermark removed) as shown via http://www.cittanuova.org/?p=381 (2012, © 2012, - Città Nuova) = http://www.cittanuova.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/san-bartolomeo.jpg, with watermark "Claudio Grumiro" = uploader User:Fabiogrum? Gunnex (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The PD-Old license is nonsense. The artist Alma Del Blanco has no Google hits, so this is almost certainly the personal work of a non-notable artist. There is no evidence of permission for this upload, so this is both out of scope and a copyvio. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Also:
- File:Alma del Banco Reiter in Spanien.jpg
- File:Alma del Banco Blick ueber Blankenese auf die Elbe.jpg
- File:Alma del Banco Fischerboote im Hafen.jpg
[the following comment was e-mailed to me]
- "I was not able to figure out how to respond to your deletion requests in regard of my Alma del Banco files. So I am to do it by means of a mail.
- 1. Alma del Banco was a founding member of the Hamburg-Secession group together with Anita Rées who can be found here: Category:Anita_Rée All of their works were regarded as "entartete Kunst" by the Nazis.
- 2. There are several hits in google! My collegue Dr. Bruhns from Hamburg University has written several books on this issue and there are even pictures to be found in google.
- 3. Alma del Banco was forced to suicide 70 years + ago.
- 4. Therefore no copyvio, no out of scope and she is not to be regarded as non-notable artist."
- User:PeterKripgans
[ends . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)]
- Thank you for the information. It would have been helpful to have had it in the image description, particularly the fact that there is a WP article at Alma del Banco. However, as noted in that article, she died March 8, 1943, so her work will not be PD until next January 1. All of the files included above will be automatically restored to Commons then.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this file is not in the public domain after all.
Section 9 of the Finnish copyright law exempts laws, international treaties and "decisions and statements" by public authorities from copyright. (see Template:PD-FinlandGov). The image is taken from the 2006 annual report of the Criminal Sanctions Agency, a public authority.
However, the annual report of this agency is not a "decision or statement" as meant in the copyright law, but an ordinary publication. "Decision or statement" (in Finnish: "päätös tai lausuma", in Swedish: "beslut eller yttrande") has a specific legal meaning, and mostly covers official decisions and opinions issued by a public authority, that have a law-like or judicial effect, but which are not decrees (fi: asetus).
For example, documents listed here are "decisions and statements" by the Energy Market Authority, and exempt from copyright. Likewise, documents listed here are mostly official instructions relevant to the Criminal Sanctions Agency, and exempt from copyright. But, documents listed here (including the annual reports) are general publications by the agency, and not exempt from copyright. Essentially, the Finnish copyright is much more restrictive in relation to documents by public officials than the U.S. copyright, and does not exempt these kinds of documents that this image is taken from of copyright.
Thus, this image has a copyright (probably held by the Criminal Sanctions Agency) under Finnish law, and it can not be included in Commons with this licensing (a legally invalid claim of being in the public domain.) hydrox (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation; photoshop of http://static.metal-archives.com/images/6/0/2/602.jpg or some other image of this album cover bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE eurodyne (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted logo that probably should have been uploaded locally under fair use. Furthermore, the logo is out of date, and I will be uploading the new one -- this file will fall out of use. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, the file has copyright. Please see the copyright notice at: http://www.civ.gob.gt/web/guest/83 —G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
copyright http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/wolverhampton-wanderers-potential-transfer-targets-2173109.html?action=gallery&ino=4 Remy34 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Picture is no "own work" by uploader, but copied from publications of Peter Vršanský et al. See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-012-0956-7 and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/08/23/look-at-this-glowing-south-american-roaches-mimic-toxic-beetles/#.UbOsxpwpZNI. Andibrunt (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- i just got the permission of Peter Vršanský. will send his approval to the OTRS asap. --Kulac (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Permission received and approved. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Andibrunt (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. INeverCry 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Too small to be useful, dubious as own work given web resolution. Chris857 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No educational use, likely not own work --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be useful given blue and green dots, dubious as own work. Chris857 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No educational use, likely not own work --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
American laws on Freedom of Panorama do not apply to three-dimensional works of art; this work is copyright Dale Chihuly DS (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
american laws on freedom of panorama do not apply to three-dimensional works of art (like this one). DS (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a panorama, it is a close-up of a small fraction of a work of art. I refer you to the section under Fair Use related to "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Sharktopustalk
Comment Fair use does not apply on commons. On the other hand, I am not sure whether a closeup image like this falls under panorama or not. Do we have any old DRs to compare this case with? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- My guess is, no. It's a close-up of a copyrighted work of art, it's not acceptable. DS (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, then there's no alternative to deletion. I was asking, because in jewelry the "copied piece" needs to be 15% different than the original to be considered a new original design. I was hoping that might be the case here as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- My guess is, no. It's a close-up of a copyrighted work of art, it's not acceptable. DS (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 01:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
american law on freedom of panorama does not cover 3d works DS (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems not to be "own work" — D Y O L F 77
[Talk] 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
This is likely a flickrwash from an account with only 23 images. Some images like this are taken from facebook. Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Im not opposed to its deletion, but ONLY if Flickrwashing is proved. We cant delete images only because some users think that "probably", "perhaps" the image is a copy. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- P.D. Im still waiting for a convincing explanation for the deleting of File:Abbas al-Musawi.jpg, and have noticed that another file I had uploaded recently File:Hassan Nasrallah grafitti.jpg had been erased by Túrelio without any warning or notice. So disgusting behaviour for a Commons administrator... :-( --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you have 7 earlier deletion-warnings from me on your talkpage, it seems that this didn't really change your upload-behaviour.
- As a service: here you have the requested deletion-rationale: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbas al-Musawi.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry if I had been rude, I blamed you for not warning me because I thought that you were the one who had to notice it to me, while it was the nominator who had to do it. Still, its so disgusting that the nominator didnt do it. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr shows that it was uploaded on 16 April. This page and this page used the image on 15 April. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I checked the images on the flickr account photostream and its inconsistent in terms of output--with formal images of General Hassan Nasrallah and then two facebook images and some personal images. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: OK, now that it had been clearly proved that the image had been flickrwashed, I agree and understand the deletion.Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 01:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Delete |reason=wrong spelling |subpage=Category:Taken with Kodak EasyShsre M575 |day=8 |month=June |year=2013 }}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maher27777 (talk • contribs) 2013-06-08T21:23:59 (UTC)
Don't open a Deletion request for your own uploads. Please use {{Speedy}} instead. Amitie 10g (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Category:Protestant church in Nantes
[edit]- File:Nantes Tour Bretagne Protestant church.JPG
- File:Protestant church in Nantes1.JPG
- File:Protestant church in Nantes2.JPG
- File:Temple protestant de Nantes.JPG
No FoP in France. Built in 1958. Architect dead in 1998 [1]. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 15:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The original image of this flag was designed by TRT in 1969. The {{Self}} claim is so doubtful. Most of all of this user's uploads are copyvio. & not in use. Takabeg (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Keep Fry1989 eh? 21:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you feel 'nonsence ? The flag of Gazne Devleti was designed by TRT in 1969. If you know Turkish language, read the article on forged flags written by Hüseyin Nihal Atsız. Takabeg (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, according to FOTW, this is the alleged flag of an empire that expanded from 962 to 1183. Not entirely clear, but it doesn't say anything about it being designed by the broadcaster TRT. The article you like isn't entirely clear in saying the TRT made up this flag, but they certainly do attack the TRT as being a "left-wing broadcaster" that promotes certain ideologies regarding the history of Turkey. Fry1989 eh? 00:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you feel 'nonsence ? The flag of Gazne Devleti was designed by TRT in 1969. If you know Turkish language, read the article on forged flags written by Hüseyin Nihal Atsız. Takabeg (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete FASTILY (TALK) 21:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. These flags were created by TRT in 1969. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Seljuq Empire.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Ghaznavid Empire.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Great Seljuk Empire.gif etc..
They will be undeleted in 2040 together with {{Fictitious flag}}.
Takabeg (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence given that this is a copyvio. Flags and the like generally have pretty loose copyright protection, and these don't look like an exact copy of any flag. If the drawing is a copyvio, you need to provide some evidence to that effect. (And it's 2065, 95 years from publication under US law.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - fourth (!) nomination of this file by the same user - Jcb (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep once again, a clear disrespect for community decision. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The deletion requests pointed to look very strange. There are strong claims being made repeatedly, and no sources for those claims are apparent. Each request seems based upon the last request like a string of dominoes. Logically, if this nonsense keeps up, the others should be re-examined.
Someone says a media outlet invented the flags, I'd like to ask for a source on that. Penyulap ☏ 04:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment The reduced images of the 16 flags were used in The official website of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey (I don't know whether the presidency get permission of the copyright holder or not.). Even in Turkish Wikipedia, these can be uploaded with the tag of Non-free fair use. Because they know the fact that they (except Ottoman, Khwarazmian) are not free images: e.g. tr:Dosya:Avar devleti.png (Avar Khaganate) tr:Dosya:Büyük Hun İmparatorluğu bayrağı.gif). Turkish users like flags :) But when they chose featured article, they removed forged fictional flags. Ghaznavids is the one of the featured articles in Turkish Wikipedia, but the article became featured article just after removal of the flag ("Bu bayrağın TRT uydurması olduğunu belirtmek onu ansiklopedik kılmaya yetmez; bunu açıklayan bir bölüm maddeye eklenmeli)). Khazar khaganate is one of the featured article, they don't use forged flag in it. I don't understand why some users can permit copyright violation especially of Gaznavids, and Gökturks. Altought most of all images of flags of same series were deleted, I believe that approaches of some users are inconsistent and some users apply double standard. Takabeg (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm seeing the problem here, you're making claims that some media outlet made it up, and not answering the question about why you think that, is it just some kind of guessing on your part ? because guesses don't really stack up against the other arguments offered. Do you have some references or not ? Penyulap ☏ 05:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No source is identified for three of the files. For File:GokTurkFlag.PNG, the uploader has a history of uploading files that are incorrectly attributed (Special:DeletedContributions/AteshCommons). Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see that page, I'm not an admin, maybe someone can tell me us all how many images we are talking about, compared to say (Special:DeletedContributions/Penyulap) ? Penyulap ☏ 18:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is clearly an exact copy of a design that was created in the 1960s, and since it historically isn't actually a flag, any consideration of public domain status usually attached to flags is irrelevant. This has all been discussed multiple times and multiple previous copies of this same design and others from the same set have already been deleted, so I'm really really getting weary of having to re-argue it again and again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey that sounds so very convincing I won't even ask for a link or any kind of substantiation. Bravo.. Penyulap ☏ 11:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The links to the preceding deletion discussions are already given further up. Just follow them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- "White crescent in upper left corner and peacock, center, on green field" is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But this isn't just "white crescent in upper left corner and peacock, center, on green field". This is a slavish copy of a specific design with a specific peacock in a specific posture, with a specific arrangement of stylized feathers and a specifically stylized form of feet, head and tail. It is copied directly from a version that was hosted on a "flags of the word" website since about ten years ago (copy here [2]), and that it turn was copied from the Turkish publications from the 1960s mentioned earlier. The original drawing, though ugly and amateurish, is clearly original enough to attract copyright, and this copy is clearly close enough to it to count as derivative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey that sounds so very convincing I won't even ask for a link or any kind of substantiation. Bravo.. Penyulap ☏ 11:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be more discussion at ANU then there is on this page, and there are links and translation and all sorts of things presented there, so I'll copy it here for everyone's convenience.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
.== User:Takabeg == Repeated nominations of the same files, although keep-closed by different administrators. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gazne-devleti-bayragi.png, where he nominates the files for the fourth (!) time in two years. He is also the user who unlinks the files, so that they seem to be unused. Jcb (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I do find Takabeg problematic from time to time, but I have worked with him on many DRs and I generally agree with him. He has more than 50,000 edits on Commons and almost 350,000 on all WMF projects, which makes him an important resource for us all. Although we have two Admins who have TR-2, he is certainly our most active user who reads Turkish. I can understand his frustration here -- he has offered a perfectly good cite (in Turkish, but we claim to be a multi-lingual project) for the recent creation and copyright status of this flag -- and several of our colleagues have ignored the cite and asked him to prove his position. Last time I looked, the burden of proof was on those who wanted to keep an image. I also note that it is perfectly valid -- not an abuse -- to renominate a file for deletion. Arguing that that is an abuse suggests that we should stop using Commons:Undeletion requests which does the same thing on the other side of the decision. I suggest that everyone calm down a little. Although the burden or proof is not on him, perhaps Takabeg could provide a translation of the cite for us all at the DR. Those who would like to keep the flag could read the cite in English and we can all make an informed decision. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No need to list all the fallacies one by one nor I have the possibility. But it should be better to talk about flags.
16 flags of 16 imaginary Turkish states are also totally imaginary, fabricated and faked up. First of all, ancient Turks had no flags but "tuğ" (horsetail on a pole used instead of flag). Flag has been arised later centuries after the development of "tuğ". And also as it is known ancient Turks didn't have one national flag but a diversity of them. Most of the Ottoman Turks flags are known. It is common knowledge that every military unit, every corsair, every commander had their own different flag. A unique national flag idea has been developed rather slowly and our modern flag took its form in time of Sultan Abdülmecid. To picture a bizarre creature like a dragon, salamander, lizard or dinosaur on the Hun (en:Xiognu) flag between the fabricated flags means that (the ones who faked them up) has no knowledge about Turks' history. Dragon is a Chinese symbol. Turks used wolf, falcon and sheep. Also in this calendar,it is seriously to be known what kind of imaginary mind has faked up the all-yellow flag of Western Xiognu (they mean the last period of Middle East Xiognu) and all-black flag of Khwarazmid...Those 16 flags are fabricated flags by a governmental institution and which have been imprinted on a calendar at 1969 in Turkey. I have no idea about the copyright issue of those flags, but they are not the historical "flags" that's for sure. Other than this issue, they are widely known and used in Turkey. For example you can check on the site of Turkish Presidency all those 16 flags and attributed Turkish states. --Mskyrider (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|
I think a section of my comment there bears repeating,
Well, as you've said, [Mskyrider]
- 'It should be possible they have copyleft because they are treated today as the "real historical" flags.'
- '[...]the fact is that they are considered as "real" today in Turkey by most'
- '[...]they are widely known and used in Turkey. For example you can check on the site of Turkish Presidency all those 16 flags and attributed Turkish states.'
If historic flags are treated as ok by the turkish government as you say, and most people there are happy with that as well, plus the TV company hasn't gone and got itself a courtcase saying it owns the flags like that australian who owns the native australian's flag, then we're good to go. You can point out all of this in an article on the local wiki, as you say "This event itself requires an article." and put the 16 flags into it along with your reasoning and references. I have no idea what that local wiki would say about OR or SYN, I guess with good writing it is easy to avoid issues like that. In the meantime, the Turkish Government saying old flags are OK, plus suggesting these are old flags is probably good enough for commons, as that is how we determine things.
The other files deleted as part of the 'domino effect', where one dr points to another dr, should be examined. If the Turkish Gov. is ok with one of these similar files, then they'd be ok with all of them. What is required to delete them is so simple, some statement by the media outlet claiming copyright, and nothing to refute their claim. Unfortunately, we have none of that, and plenty of the opposite. Penyulap ☏ 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Apart from users' POVs, reliable sources prove the fact that these flags are not historical ones. Formerly 16 stars in the presidential seal of the Republic of Turkey represented 16 Turkish principalities (Therefore we say that the origin of the Turkish nation who established the new Republic of Turkey are based on 16 Turkish principalities. This people is symbolized as 16 starts in the presidential seal of the Republic of Turkey. - Bu nedenle Yeni Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'ni kuran Türk Ulusu'nun kökeni 16 Türk Beyliğine dayanır diyoruz. Bu halk, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'nin simgesi olan Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsunda 16 yıldız biçiminde Türk Ulusu adıyla somutlaşmıştır., 10th Congress of the Turkish Historical Society). And then the presidency changed their claim according to their ethnocentric historiography and accepted new flags that were created by TRT. This is the reason why we cannot find these flags in any historical documents. Takabeg (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- How the image is presented is a different matter to the image being hosted on commons. If there is no problem with the copyright, it can stay, how it is labelled, as a fantasy or historic is an independent matter. Commons hosts fantasy flags where they are significant. If the government is displaying them on a website, that is significant, they are useful to describe what the government is presenting on its website. Penyulap ☏ 01:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think some users may forget Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Precautionary principle deals with the reasonable doubt, not paranoia. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I just added this nomination to the today day page, because renominator did not add it to a day page. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Our precautionary principle is very clear. There is doubt as to the authorship of the designs of these flags. If someone can provide solid evidence one way or the other of authorship we can undelete, but in the meantime, PRP applies. russavia (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a screenshot from a press conference video. Jespinos (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesn't look like a free image --moogsi·(blah) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
To small to be an own work. JaviP96 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Size doesn't matter, JaviP96! At least not here. I agree with the nomination, very likely not own work but taken from a website. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, nature of the photo, and the uploader's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
no license, source link does not work Didym (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- No time to fix it so just a hint: the last section of the source string is the Flickr image number. A search with photo + number or image + number should find the source. A simpler option in this case is to change photo to photos (in the link) to arrive at the Flickr page. --Denniss (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. I only tried a Google Images search without success. --Didym (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Image passed Flickrreview. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. I only tried a Google Images search without success. --Didym (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: /á(!) 10:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Delete |reason=copyright violation: [3] |subpage=File:மெட்ரோ ரயில்.jpg |day=8 |month=June |year=2013 }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanags (talk • contribs) 2013-06-08T03:06:10 (UTC)
No evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aina Aiikyo (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused self-portrait by the uploader. not educationally useful and probably self-promotion.
Nightingale (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is now used on her user page on English Wikipedia and elsewhere. -Pete F (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Atikur Rahman Sharif (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhavikbamania (talk · contribs)
[edit]8 uploads = 6x copyvio, per COM:PRP: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (missing exif etc.) so these one can't be believed either.
Gunnex (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
unused self-portrait by the uploader. not educationally useful and probably self-promotion.
Nightingale (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dimkadegtyar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, possibly not own work (some are watermarked).
- File:Denede 05.jpg
- File:Denede 06.jpg
- File:Denede 04.jpg
- File:Denede 03.jpg
- File:Denede 01.jpg
- File:Denede 02.jpg
- File:Dimad.jpg
Savhñ 20:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Art work (graffiti?) located at Italian walls may be in COM:FOP#Italy-scope (no freedom of panorama in Italy). See also Category:Graffiti in Italy.
- File:Murale Caruso sbig.jpg
- File:Murale Fiume Sand Creek sbig.jpg
- File:Murale Marcia della fame sbig.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Florianlocal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MicheleP63 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Penetrometro.jpg
- File:Tacheometro Salmoiraghi.jpg
- File:Rubinetto gas doppio.jpg
- File:Lampada a gas.jpg
- File:Pirometri.jpg
- File:Ferri a gas.jpg
- File:Contatore campione 1867.jpg
- File:Prova batterie.jpg
- File:Livella ad acqua.jpg
- File:Pensky-martens.jpg
- File:Lanterne a benzina.jpg
- File:Scarpe per gasisti.jpg
- File:Portagrano.jpg
- File:Collasorano.jpg
- File:SGMM.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shipluislam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of unremarkable person, out of scope. Some are copyvio
- File:Shiplu.jpg
- File:Shiplu Islam.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 17.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 18.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 16.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 15.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 13.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 11.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 12.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 10.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 8.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 7.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 9.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 4.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 6.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 5.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 3.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 2.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 1.jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi.jpg
- File:Nahid Samsetabriz (7).jpg
- File:Nahid Samsetabriz (6).JPG
- File:Bedom Warsi (5).jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi (6).jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi 5.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 11.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 7.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 9.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 6.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 5.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 4.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 3.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 2.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 1.jpg
- File:Quran 2 Final.jpg
- File:Quran Final.jpg
- File:Dr.BaBa JAHANGIR Ba-Iman Al Sureswari Kamel Pir O Murshed.jpg
- File:Marefoter Bani.pdf
- File:Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 02.pdf
- File:Marefat 2nd 3rd part Cover Page.jpg
- File:Marefater bani Cover Page.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shipluislam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used (as I could verify). Mostly all files grabbed from (his?) http://www.flickr.com/photos/68240570@N02/with/6210321652/
- File:33333insha.jpg
- File:322bedum.jpg
- File:311guru.jpg
- File:100bedum.jpg
- File:299guru.jpg
- File:288bedum.jpg
- File:277bedum.jpg
- File:2555mahirshejuti.jpg
- File:244mahir.jpg
- File:233shejuti.jpg
- File:222nahid.jpg
- File:200bedum.jpg
- File:199shejuti.jpg
- File:188shejuti.jpg
- File:177shejutimahir.jpg
- File:144shejuti.jpg
- File:1555rahi.jpg
- File:133shiplu.jpg
- File:122shejuti.jpg
- File:101shejutimahir.jpg
- File:09shejuti.jpg
- File:777shejuti.jpg
- File:08shejuti.jpg
- File:6666666666666666666sai.jpg
- File:44444444444444family.jpg
- File:5555555555555555555555family.jpg
- File:2222222mahir.jpg
- File:33333333shejuti.jpg
- File:1111saifulislamlavlu.jpg
- File:3 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 02.pdf
- File:1 Marefoter Bani.pdf
- File:2 Marefoter Gopon Kotha.pdf
- File:11 Udoyaer Pothe.pdf
- File:10 Amar Fokiri.pdf
- File:9 Sufibader Rohoshya.pdf
Gunnex (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Adding (batch task missed)...
- File:8 Sufibad Sarbojonin.pdf
- File:7 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 04.pdf
- File:6 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 03.pdf
- File:1 Quran Part 1.pdf
- File:2 Quran Part 2..pdf
- Gunnex (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TrentChandler (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused self-portrait by the uploader. not educationally useful and probably self-promotion.
Nightingale (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope per nom. PierreSelim (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Veilleux79 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most likely grabbed from Google maps (etc.) and most unlikely images from a private satellite owned by User:Veilleux79.
- File:Seekonk speedwayb.jpg
- File:Seekonk speedway.jpg
- File:Thompson international speedway.jpg
- File:Waterford speedbowl.jpg
- File:Center for speed.jpg
- File:Spud speedway.jpg
- File:Speedway 95.jpg
- File:New hampshire motor speedway.jpg
- File:Canaan fair speedway.jpg
- File:Mont-tremblant.jpg
- File:St-eustache b.jpg
- File:Peterborough speedway.jpg
- File:Mosport speedway.jpg
- File:Mosport raceway.jpg
- File:Barrie speedway.jpg
- File:Sunset speedway.jpg
- File:Flamboro.jpg
- File:Delaware.jpg
- File:Stafford.jpg
- File:Thunder road speedbowl.jpg
- File:Beech ridge motor.jpg
- File:Oxford plains speedway.jpg
- File:Speedway 660.jpg
- File:Sanair.jpg
- File:Capital city speedway.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ford Taunus GT coupé.jpg, this one is definitely a scan of an ad, and thus the claimed licensing basis is incorrect. It *might* be permissible under the Argentine 25-year rule on photographic copyright, but as with the other file this would have to be definitely okay (and isn't the same as the claimed basis for it being uploaded in the first place) Ubcule (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Assuming this is a legitimate logo, and that the uploader is *not* associated with "Big C" (there is no indication to that effect), then it's unlikely to be their work. Can we keep this as a "simple shapes or text" trademarked logo, or should it be deleted for being unclear about its source? User has already had some uploads apparently deleted on that basis.
Note that en:File:Bigc_logo.png at English Wikipedia has apparently been deemed "fair use" (i.e. not free).
(See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigclogo.jpg).
Ubcule (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Assuming this is a legitimate logo, and that the uploader is *not* associated with "Big C" (there is no indication to that effect), then it's unlikely to be their work. Can we keep this as a "simple shapes or text" trademarked logo, or should it be deleted for being unclear about its source? User has already had some uploads apparently deleted on that basis.
Note that en:File:Bigc_logo.png at English Wikipedia has apparently been deemed "fair use" (i.e. not free).
(See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigclowprice.png)
Ubcule (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a copyrighted painting by Norman Rockwell. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Whatever the issue with copying Rockwell, the foreground image of Lincoln appears to be new work (newer than the background, at any rate) and therefore is under copyright. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- You'll want to delete this file then, too: File:Martin_Luther_King.jpg Rklawton (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm getting there. Anyway, this is a blatant copyvio of Bailey's painting of which you can buy prints. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- You'll want to delete this file then, too: File:Martin_Luther_King.jpg Rklawton (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Probable (unintentional) copyvio; looked like a publicity shot at first glance, and the original Flickr page states "Today I posted a group of Taunus and Cortina advertising from around the world.". Previous and subsequent images on user's Flickr account are clearly commercial ads. Furthermore, inspection at full scale reveals clear patterning consistent with scan from halftoned/screen image (i.e. commercially printed publication). Ubcule (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Additional; this *might* be permitted by the Argentine 25-year rule on photographic copyright, although that's not the claimed basis it was uploaded to Commons on, and we'd have to be sure of this. Ubcule (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete The Taunus was built in Argentina from 1974 to 1984, so this image is definitely older than 25 years. But Argentina is a contracting party of the Berne Convention, and as the photo was still copyrighted in 1996, it became copyrighted in the US per the URAA. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:De728631. INeverCry 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
High Contrast thought a DR was required, but then didn't start one. I think this file is a derivative work and should be deleted. Vera (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
JBarta created a central location for deletion requests coming from this user's uploads. It's suggested further comments be made there. Whaledad (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a deletion request for being a deriviative image that contains copyrighted work, not for the watermark issue like the others. – JBarta (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly the copyrighted material is the subject so de minimis does not apply. This could be speedily deleted, couldn't it? Rybec (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had at first nominated it for a speedy deletion, no idea why High Contrast wanted a discussion, he didn't give a motivation. --Vera (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, isn't that covered by COM:FOP#Netherlands? --JuTa 09:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: FOP Netherlands covers all works except text so the only issue is permanence. Since FOP usual covers sand and ice sculpture and other works that are in one place for their entire lives, I think this is "permanent" for FOP purposes. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
dubbing a billboard FOP is nonsense, billboards aren't covered by FOP, simple Vera (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment In a similar case, the decision was to keep: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hauptbahnhof 01.JPG. darkweasel94 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I agree this is PD-SIMPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
woards and something looks like a spring or i don't know this is PD-SIMPLE.--EEIM (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, {{Pd-textlogo}} applies here because the logo effectivelly does not meet the threshold of originallity. Amitie 10g (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The top part with the tree/circle. Keep The bottom with the text by cropping. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like pd-simple to me FASTILY 20:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree with previous closure. The logo is not simple, it does not consist of simple geometrical figures. Try to name these geometrical shapes! Taivo (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this can really be called SIMPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
M,stars and lines is PD_simple.--EEIM (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment if it were American, I'd say yes, it was simple; it's a standard striped shield with stars and an m on it. I don't know Mexican standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 8 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 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is PD-simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
this image is same that.File:DTS-HD-MA.svg,cause i uploaded.--EEIM (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Question EEIM, what software program did you use to make this logo? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- He used Inkscape. --Metrónomo (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: looks like pd simple FASTILY 20:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Cleam of own work, yet no EXIF, and tiny, tiny resolution. Uploader was blocked on enwp for copyright violations. Courcelles 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader seems to have been unblocked on en:W [4], but appears to have been editing by ip 70.124.114.59. Uploader has contributed a large number of useful apparently original photos, mostly of Texas and Louisiana, but in the past had trouble understanding not to upload derivative works as own creation (photos of photos). I would like to hear the uploader's comments on this. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- "I took this photo with a Canon camera which was giving me problems; a few weeks later I changed cameras. The photo is small and will not enlarge. I think it may have been taken on the "rec" button. The picture is legitimate. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)" (Comment copied here from image page by Infrogmation (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
Kept: ok i guess FASTILY 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sole contribution by uploader - no evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I received an e-mail about the photo that seems to be from en:Janina Gavankar - referring her to OTRS. Kelly (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. If OTRS recieves permission, the file can be restored FASTILY 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No source, probably a violation grabbed off some website. We have good SVGs of the Norwegian royal standard. Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep!! There is an ongoing edit war on no:wp - uploader vs deletion nominator. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I keep removing it because of this DR. The file has no source and if it is deleted that page will have nothing. We don't keep files because of "edit wars", we keep them based on their copyright status, and this image's status is unclear. The uploader is vandalizing the page by replacing our SVG with an unsourced PNG. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader claims {{Own work}}, a "probable" copyvio is not a deletion reason. A google search finds a similar image at picasa, but it is not identical. BjørnN (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I keep removing it because of this DR. The file has no source and if it is deleted that page will have nothing. We don't keep files because of "edit wars", we keep them based on their copyright status, and this image's status is unclear. The uploader is vandalizing the page by replacing our SVG with an unsourced PNG. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- This image is not a violation grabbed off some website. It is my work, identified as such, and uploaded with a CC license. My drawing is based on the original design of the Norwegian coat of arms from December 1905 by painter Eilif Peterssen. The lion created by Peterssen has since then been used in all royal flags.
- Wikimedia Commons had no file depicting royal flags with the royal lion of Norway in its official version. For that reason I found it necessary to donate an alternative to the File:Royal Standard of Norway.svg and other flag files. Those files are based on an unofficial version by an unknown artist scanned from Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1924. This fanciful and shaggy lion has never been used in official arms or flags. It slept peacefully in the old volumes of Salmonsen and was probably never reproduced elsewhere until it was revived by Valentinian 12.06.2007 as File: Det norske rigsvåben - Salmonsen 1924.jpg, later vectorized by Ssolbergj on 28.06.2009 as File:Coat of Arms of Norway (1924).svg and then modified by Fry 18.06.2010.
- Heraldic coats of arms are identified by the wording of their blazon, not by pictures. The coat of arms of Norway would according to this definition be adequately illustrated by a design in keeping with its blazon: «Gules, a lion rampant Or, crowned and bearing an axe with blade argent.» The blazon of the royal standard of Norway was formally decided by the government on 15 December 1905, and in December 1905 the lion designed by Eilif Peterssen was selected as the official heraldic beast in royal arms and flags. For this reason, a reliable depiction of the royal standard must necessarily be based on Peterssens design. It appears in all printed flag books and trustworthy websites, including the FOTW site, although their lion design by Zeljko Heimer has a somewhat stooped posture and other deviant details.
- WP articles on official flags should only be illustrated by images that faithfully reproduce them as they are officially approved and actually flown. My File:Kongeflagg.png complies with this condition, and so do its derivatives for the crown prince and royal pennant. They must remain on the Commons and be allowed to illustrate all appropriate articles until better versions are available. I welcome any new files that more correctly reproduce the original design by Peterssen, or SVG-files with the same content. Roede (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Own Work" is doubtful, you will have to provide proof of that. In any case, I've seen the Norwegian Royal Standard, there is nothing fake about our SVG, Roede just doesn't like it. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Own Work" is OK until copyvio is demonstrated. A reason to delete does not exist. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it works here. The uploader is required to prove their image is Commons-compatible, not the opposite. Roede has not demonstrated this level of artistic ability before, so it's extremely doubtful he created this all by himself. If he hasn't, then he must provide sources for his elements. As there are no sources, and "own work" is doubtful, the status of this image is questionable and we delete questionable content. Fry1989 eh? 23:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Own Work" is OK until copyvio is demonstrated. A reason to delete does not exist. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. As BjørnN says, a "probable" copyvio is not a deletion reason. The image can't be deleted if copyvio isn't demonstrated. This nomination is trolling, and was made only because Fry wants his/her own illustration to be used in the articles. Haakon K (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- The well-known Norwegian vexillologist Hans A.K.T. Cappelen has come up with the most convincing argument for the design by Eilif Peterssen in his recent comment on the talk page of the article Royal Standard of Norway: "The heraldic principle is that you may draw the charges in a coat of arms in many different ways. When the owners of a heraldic banner, however, always use a special style and a special drawing, that is an argument for reproducing the banner in that way here at wikipedia. What are the reasons not to do that? I don't see why Fry1989 has changed the wording of the illustrations that I have written in the article and why Fry1989 will not allow the illustrations of the actual banners instead of the Salomonsen lion banners. It would be interesting to see other arguments than those that we have seen till now. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Standard_of_Norway&oldid=559356315"
- The design of the Royal coat of arms was established by Royal Resolution in Council on 30 December 1905. The design by Eilif Peterssen has since then been used for all purposes by the royal court and the royal family. The royal family and court have the exclusive rights to this coat of arms. For confirmation, see http://www.kongehuset.no/artikkel.html?tid=74742&sek=26980. Wikipedia should only use the design of the banners that are actually flown. Roede (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- The three of you can call it "trolling" or whatever else you want, but here are the simple facts.
- A: It is the requirement of the uploader to prove their image is PD, not the job of the nominator to prove the reverse.
- B: Roede has not shown this artistic ability before, so there is no reason to believe he created this image all by himself, which "Own Work" means.
- C: If Roede didn't create this image himself, he needs to provide sources that it is PD, or else it is a violation that can not be here.
- D: When the copyright status of an image is unclear, we do in fact delete them on Commons.
And on a side-note, since the three people here want to make this look like it's a matter of disagreement on the design rather then copyright status
- E: I didn't make the SVG, another user did. So saying I'm trying to push "my own illustration" is false.
- F: The lion on this file looks nothing like the one in Roede's link, it is completely different. So this design itself is also unsourced.
- These are the facts. All Roede has to do is demonstrate that he was able to create this by himself, or provide sources to the elements he used showing they are in fact PD. If he can do neither, this can not be here by the licensing requirements of Commons, not my feelings or your feelings or anything else. These are the rules here, things have to be PD. Fry1989 eh? 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- A link to the relevant Commons policy statements might be helpful. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is something you should already know. Commons requires images to be in the Public Domain, that's the entire premise of our licensing requirements. If you cannot prove that your upload is PD, then it's status is in doubt. All users have a right to nominate an image if they doubt the copyright status is in agreement with Commons requirements, and we delete such images if no such proof can be provided in the DR. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I must inform you that PD is just one of several possible licences accepted in Commons. Also, nobody has disputed your right to nominate for deletion. Your capability in this matter is not convincing to me. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is something you should already know. Commons requires images to be in the Public Domain, that's the entire premise of our licensing requirements. If you cannot prove that your upload is PD, then it's status is in doubt. All users have a right to nominate an image if they doubt the copyright status is in agreement with Commons requirements, and we delete such images if no such proof can be provided in the DR. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- A link to the relevant Commons policy statements might be helpful. Regards, BjørnN (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- My artistic abilites may of course be doubted. But I am in fact a trained architect, with several years' of edcucation in the visual arts by eminent artists who were my teachers at the Technical University of Norway. My experience as a graphic designer includes the official emblems of the Norsk Folkemuseum and the Supreme Court of Norway. I have downloaded many of my own drawings to Commons. Must I prove my proficiency by submitting the first pencil sketches for the file Kongeflagg.png? It is definitely my own work, based on the original drawings for the Royal arms and standard. My own works have never before been disputed by the administrators of Commons.
- The salient point of this discussion is that the design of the lion in the Royal Standard and other royal flags is by Royal Resolution in Council required to be the one submitted by the artist Eilif Peterssen for the Royal coat of arms. Wikipedia must not misinform its readers by illustrating articles on official flags with pictures of flags that have never existed. The File:Royal Standard of Norway.svg has never been flown from the Royal Palace or the Royal yacht. It has never appeared in flag books or reliable flag websites such as FOTW. It is a fanciful invention of some unknown illustrator for the Danish Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon in 1924. All printed Norwegian dictionaries depict the real flag designed by Peterssen, the model for my recent upload. Wikipedia must remain a reliable source of information. I welcome the help of wikipediana with better technical skills than mine to produce an SVG image - but please, of the official design, not the shaggy Salmonsen lion. Roede (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- BjørnN I really do not care what you think of my capabilities in conducting DRs is. Images on Commons are required to be Public Domain. If they are not Public Domain for whatever reason may be, they need explicit permission for free use. That's the requirement here. As for the design itself, since the three of you want to make this about that, even though it's not why I originally nominated it, this image looks nothing like the coat of arms shown in Roede's link at the Royal Website. If it had to be decided between this file and the lion on the current SVG, the SVG's lion wins it out a million times over. The fact is, there is no source for the lion on Roede's upload. It doesn't look like his source, it doesn't look like the coats of arms we have, it doesn't look like the photo of the Royal Standard I have, it doesn't look like anything. Fry1989 eh? 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Roede's flag does look like the version of the flag that is used nowadays: [5] [6]. The first of these images is from the Royal House's official website. The image you are comparing with, shows an old version of the coat of arms, not even the flag. Haakon K (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- As for the coat of arms, in this document you can read that design of the official version of the coat of arms was changed in 1992, which means that the one with the hairy lion that you prefer, is not official. Haakon K (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't look like it at all. The lion has a different posture, lacks detail, the flag uses a much darker red, and many other highly noticeable differences. And it looks positively nothing like the lion used in the coat of arms on the Royal Website, as provided in Roede's link. But even if it looked exactly like it down to every detail, this image's copyright status is the reason for this DR. It is the reason why this image may or may not be deleted. It is the reason I nominated the image and the reason we should be focusing on. The three of you are muddling this discussion, trying to make it look like an argument over design, in a clear attempt to skew the discussion away from what really matters; the copyright status. Prove that this image is in the Public Domain, and I will happily retract my nomination. Otherwise this is a perfectly valid DR.
- As for the coat of arms, in this document you can read that design of the official version of the coat of arms was changed in 1992, which means that the one with the hairy lion that you prefer, is not official. Haakon K (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- On a side-note, your link to the NORED document on the coat of arms is completely irrelevant to this DR. The document is explicity about the State coat of arms used by the government. It does not mention the Royal coat of arms at all, which is governed under different regulations and the purview of the Royal Family. Don't waste anybody's time with such unrelated content. Fry1989 eh? 00:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm afraid you are the one wasting your time with this nomination, and you know it so well. We're still waiting for you to prove that the image is copyvio. If it was the uploader that is required to prove their image is not copyvio, then almost every single image on Commons should be nominated for nomination, beause it's impossible to prove. Or how do you think it should be proved? You claim that "Roede has not shown this artistic ability before". First of all, take a lot at his contribution list. And even if he hadn't, one time has to be the first! Or are you thinking about deleting the first contribution from every new user because they haven't proved their artistic ability before?
- While we're waiting, as a reply to your side-note, here is another source for the design: [7]. Or is it still "completely different" in your eyes? Haakon K (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- You can laugh and joke all you want, but the fact remains that it is the requirement of the uploader to provide the copyright status of their image. Not the reverse. Those are the rules here, everything else you say and think is irrelevant. Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is an argument about design. Because Commons had no good image of the Norwegian royal standards, flag articles in Wikipedia had and still have misleading illustrations showing flags that never existed. One such well-meant but impossible image is the File:Royal Standard of Norway.svg, based on a design by Karl Georg Jensen for (Danish) Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon in 1924. In order to remedy the lack of files fit for use, I provided three files based on the design of the official coat of arms adopted by Royal Resolution in December 1905. The heraldic lion of that CoA has been the exclusive charge of all royal flags ever since. It is present (with varying degrees of accuracy) in all flag books and dictionaries, e.g. the last printed editions of Store norske leksikon from 1994 and 2006.[1] The correct royal standard is also to be seen in reliable websites, e.g. http://www.ub.uib.no/avdeling/jur/arkiv/flagg2004.htm. and on the link provided by Haakon K above.
- I am the author of the File.Kongeflagg.png. I scanned it from my own pen-and-ink drawing copied from several versions of Eilif Peterssens original design. I uploaded it on Commons so that Wikipedia flag articles might be improved. I released my rights as the author of this work under an appropriate Creative Commons license. I expect fair administrators to put a speedy end to this discussion. Keep! Roede (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Another good royal banner after Peterssens's design is depicted in Flags of the World, by Debra Clapson et.al., The Flag Institute, Dorling Kindersley Ltd., Chester 1998. Danish edition by Politikens Forlag, 1998.[2] Roede (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
New design for the Norwegian coat of arms designed by painter Eilif Peterssen, approved for official use by Royal Resolution in Council 14 December 1905.
- Another good royal banner after Peterssens's design is depicted in Flags of the World, by Debra Clapson et.al., The Flag Institute, Dorling Kindersley Ltd., Chester 1998. Danish edition by Politikens Forlag, 1998.[2] Roede (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am the author of the File.Kongeflagg.png. I scanned it from my own pen-and-ink drawing copied from several versions of Eilif Peterssens original design. I uploaded it on Commons so that Wikipedia flag articles might be improved. I released my rights as the author of this work under an appropriate Creative Commons license. I expect fair administrators to put a speedy end to this discussion. Keep! Roede (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
![7 File:Screenshot of Google Canada image search for the Japanese characters ("マンネ").png](#File:Screenshot_of_Google_Canada_image_search_for_the_Japanese_characters_("マンネ").png){kind=link}
_(3754798039).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![59 File:Robert Dragot "Mobile 6080K310i" at the 53rd. Venice Biennale.jpg](#File:Robert_Dragot_"Mobile_6080K310i"_at_the_53rd._Venice_Biennale.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3754798039).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3754798039).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3754798039).jpg){kind=link}
_(3755598040).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3755169769).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3754798039).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![12:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/08#c-Túrelio-2013-06-08T12:57:00.000Z-File:Robert_Dragot_"Mobile_6080K310i"_at_the_53rd._Venice_Biennale.jpg){kind=link}
![12:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/08#c-Túrelio-2013-06-08T12:58:00.000Z-File:Robert_Dragot_"Mobile_6080K310i"_at_the_53rd._Venice_Biennale.jpg){kind=link}
![00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/08#c-INeverCry-2013-06-15T00:51:00.000Z-File:Robert_Dragot_"Mobile_6080K310i"_at_the_53rd._Venice_Biennale.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.kongehuset.no/aim/kongehuset2/files/9/a/e/6ff5b87fc5c617f28b59b8da1e6e150929ad94ced8/9ae6ff5b87fc5c617f28b59b8da1e6e150929ad94ced8.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://pub.cdn.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00941/o7_941206a.jpg){kind=link}
- Offical design of 1905
This drawing by painter Eilif Peterssen is the main source for my file Kongeflagg.jpg. It was attached to the text of the Royal Resolution passed on 14 December 1905 and published in the Norsk Lovtidende, the official gazette of Norway, in which new legislation was announced. The introduction, in English translation: "1905 14 December, Royal Resolution, whereby it is decided 1. That the Norwegian coat of arms, as depicted in the illustration and description below, shall be a heraldic golden lion on a red triangular escutcheon, with an axe in its forepaws and with a crown, on whose globe is placed the customary cross, and behind this a lesser heraldic lion."
The adjacent file is scanned from a reproduction of the official drawing, which illustrated an article by the archivist and government herald Hallvard Trætteberg in 1937, in a Festschrift to professor Francis Bull. A facsimile of the article was published by Norsk Heraldisk Forening in 2005. In his article of 1937, Trætteberg confirmed that the government since 1905 had always used this design for official purposes. "Even when the lion is depicted alone without the escutcheon, and therefore would have room for stretching both of its hind legs, one has always traced Eilif Peterssens lion drawing as if its gothic escutchion still surrounded it and forced the lion to stand on one leg. On royal standards, military banners, stamps etc., where the lion stands on a square, open field, it has had to lift its one hind paw in an unexpected way".[3] Trætteberg was critical of Peterssens design and expressed his reasons in this article, which he published in the year when he produced his new design. It was approved by Royal Resolution 19 March 1937 and has been used by the state since then, but the Royal family continued to use Peterssens 1905 version for its arms and standards. Greetings to all from Lars Roede (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- References
- ↑ Store norske leksikon, Vol. 10. p. 259, Kunnskapsforlaget, Oslo 1994, and Vol. 11 p. 221, Oslo 2006.
- ↑ Siobhán Ryan (ed.):Politikens Flagbog, Politikens Forlag A/S, Copenhagen 1998, p. 112.
- ↑ Trætteberg, Hallvard: Norges krone og våpen. Oslo 1937. Særtrykk av Festskrift til professor Francis Bull. Facsimile published by Norsk Heraldisk Forening, Oslo 2005.
- "No good image" is a matter of opinion, "misleading" suggests the deliberate attempt to show people something false, and "impossible image" is quite frankly an impossible claim. I would suggest staying away from such assertions. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Fry1989's best argument is that he doesn't believe Roede is telling the truth about his work and abilities. There is a word for that. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- And tell me if you would, what that word is? If a user can not demonstrate their ability to create an image, then their claim of "own work" is easily disputed. Fry1989 eh? 15:54, 1 July 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 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No source, probably a violation grabbed off some website. We have good SVGs of the Norwegian royal standard. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This image is not a violation grabbed off some website. It is my work, identified as such, and uploaded with a CC license. My drawing is based on the original design of the Norwegian coat of arms from December 1905 by painter Eilif Peterssen. The lion created by Peterssen has since then been used in all royal flags.
- Wikimedia Commons had no file depicting royal flags with the royal lion of Norway in its official version. For that reason I found it necessary to donate an alternative to the File:Royal Pennant of Norway.svg and other flag files with the same lion. Those files are based on an unofficial version by an unknown artist, scanned from Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1924. This fanciful and shaggy lion has never been used in official arms or flags. It slept peacefully in the old volumes of Salmonsen and was probably never reproduced elsewhere until it was revived by Valentinian 12.06.2007 as File: Det norske rigsvåben - Salmonsen 1924.jpg, later vectorized by Ssolbergj on 28.06.2009 as File:Coat of Arms of Norway (1924).svg and then modified by Fry 18.06.2010.
- Heraldic coats of arms are identified by the wording of their blazon, not by pictures. The coat of arms of Norway would according to this definition be adequately illustrated by a design in keeping with its blazon: «Gules, a lion rampant Or, crowned and bearing an axe with blade argent.» The blazon of the royal standard of Norway was formally decided by the government on 15 December 1905, and in December 1905 the lion designed by Eilif Peterssen was selected as the official heraldic beast in all royal arms and flags. For this reason, a reliable depiction of the royal pennant must necessarily be based on Peterssens design. It appears in all printed flag books and trustworthy websites, including the FOTW site, although their lion design by Zeljko Heimer has a somewhat stooped posture and other deviant details.
- WP articles on official flags should only be illustrated by images that faithfully reproduce them as they are officially approved and actually flown. My File:Kongevimpel.png complies with this condition, and so do its derivatives for the royal standard and the standard of the crown prince. They must remain on the Commons and be allowed to illustrate all appropriate articles until better versions are available. I welcome any new files that more correctly reproduce the original design by Peterssen, or SVG-files with the same content. Roede (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doubtful, you will have to provide proof of that. In any case, I've seen the Norwegian Royal Standard, there is nothing fake about our SVG, you just don't like it. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Misisng source information, questionable copyright status FASTILY 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No source, probably a violation grabbed off some website. We have good SVGs of the Norwegian royal standard. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This image is not a violation grabbed off some website. It is my work, identified as such, and uploaded with a CC license. My drawing is based on the original design of the Norwegian coat of arms from December 1905 by painter Eilif Peterssen. The lion created by Peterssen has since then been used in all royal flags.
- Wikimedia Commons had no file depicting royal flags with the royal lion of Norway in its official version. For that reason I found it necessary to donate alternatives to the File:Royal Standard of Norway.svg and other royal flag files. Those files are based on an unofficial version by an unknown artist scanned from Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, 1924. This fanciful and shaggy lion has never been used in official arms or flags. It slept peacefully in the old volumes of Salmonsen and was probably never reproduced elsewhere until it was revived by Valentinian 12.06.2007 as File: Det norske rigsvåben - Salmonsen 1924.jpg, later vectorized by Ssolbergj on 28.06.2009 as File:Coat of Arms of Norway (1924).svg and then modified by Fry 18.06.2010.
- Heraldic coats of arms are identified by the wording of their blazon, not by pictures. The coat of arms of Norway would according to this definition be adequately illustrated by a design in keeping with its blazon: «Gules, a lion rampant Or, crowned and bearing an axe with blade argent.» The blazon of the royal standard of Norway was formally decided by the government on 15 December 1905, and in December 1905 the lion designed by Eilif Peterssen was selected as the official heraldic beast in royal arms and flags. For this reason, a reliable depiction of the standard of the crown prince of Norway must necessarily be based on Peterssens design. That design from 1905 was used when the standard of the crown prince was introduced by Royal Resolution of 26 December 1924. It appears in all printed flag books and trustworthy websites, including the FOTW site, although their lion design by Zeljko Heimer has a somewhat stooped posture and other deviant details.
- WP articles on official flags should only be illustrated by images that faithfully reproduce them as they are officially approved and actually flown. My File:Kronprinsflagg.png complies with this condition, and so do its derivatives for the royal flag and pennant. They must remain on the Commons and be allowed to illustrate all appropriate articles until better versions are available. I welcome any new files that more correctly reproduce the original design by Peterssen, or SVG-files with the same content. Roede (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doubtful, you will have to provide proof of that. In any case, I've seen the Norwegian Royal Standard, there is nothing fake about our SVG, you just don't like it. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Misisng source information, questionable copyright status FASTILY 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear licensing/copyright status. A valid OTRS-confirmed permission has not been received despite several requests Per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. Eleassar (t/p) 16:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright/Licensing is sufficiently clear: This image has been originally uploaded by Miran Hladnik (sl:User:Hladnikm, one of the two co-authors) to sl.wikipedia under the GFDL (log entries at sl.wikipedia), and the consent of his wife (Mira Hladnik, the other co-author) thereto is sufficiently documented at sl:Wikipedija:Pod lipo#Poznospomladansko trebljenje. --UV (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There is only one author, because ideas are not copyrightable: the author is the one who has created the work. There is no independent proof of explicit agreement of the author with the stated licensing. We have only seen the uploader's postings. For all cases there must be an OTRS-confirmed permission, which must contain an explicit statement about the license. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- There can be works with more than one author.
- According to sl:Wikipedija:Pod lipo#Poznospomladansko trebljenje, Mira Hladnik has sent the e-mail that is quoted there to OTRS. In my view, this e-mail constitutes consent to granting permission under the license under which Miran Hladnik (sl:User:Hladnikm) has uploaded it, which is the GFDL. --UV (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There could be more than one author if the photo was a derivative work including another photo or a statue. At the cited page, it is nowhere written that a letter has been sent to the OTRS, and if it was, the request has evidently not been successful, because the e-mail didn't include the license. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The cited page says that the e-mail quoted there was written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.com. The license to which Mira Hladnik in my view consented was the license given during the original upload (GFDL). --UV (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What is important is the view of Mira Hladnik, not your view. It must be explicitly written and verified through the OTRS. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS is just one possible way of finding out whether consent is given. It is by no means the only possible way. --UV (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let me just add that I would hate to see the image of a person go (for nitpicky reasons) who is both a scientific expert and a regular contributor to wikimedia projects. --UV (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This is true, however per COM:L, for all images, the license must be stated explicitly by the copyright holder. I respect him as a scientist and appreciate his good work in the Wikimedia projects, but don't see this as a valid reason to make exceptions in regard to our policies. If he or his wife are not willing to respect our policies, their files do not have to be tolerated just because of who he is. In regard to him being a Wikimedian, it also won't be difficult to upload new images if this one gets deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is one of the most bizarre legalistic deletion requests. I hope it gets a suitable category, so we can find it later. Slovenian wiki-community hopes this anxious deletion proposer grows up. We find similar iconsistency with his own image uploads - attributed to him, but made with his girlfriend's camera. „Če želiš, seveda lahko predlagaš vse moje slike, posnete s fotoaparatom Nikon D80, za brisanje kot dvomljive. --Eleassar“ quote from here. Grilfriend/mother/ close relative/ in my opinion there are plenty of Commons images of questionable origin in this sense. In most cases, their authorship is falsely attributed at the moment of upload, in order to avoid similar legalism. According to the law interpretation, this image should probably be deleted. But according to common sense, this deletion request should have never started in the first place. IMHO this is a brain dead request. Žiga (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for having contributed your opinion. Please, consider that we don't make decisions about which file to keep based on subjective criticisms of deletion requests, even less so on ad hominem attacks. The file still lacks a valid OTRS-confirmed permission or other clear explicit licensing by the copyright holder, as demanded by COM:L, and as such it can't be hosted here. I hope that Miran Hladnik's wife, who has been notified about this, sends it soon to us. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Very unprofessional deletion request as a consequence of some personal conflicts between the two involved users --Miha (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- The file still lacks a valid OTRS-confirmed permission or other clear explicit licensing by the copyright holder, as demanded by COM:L. It has no legally valid license. As such it must be presumed non-free for further reusage and can't be hosted here. My motives or other circumstances have no bearing on this. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: At the end of the day, the file is still missing evidence of permission. If *adequate* evidence of permission is recieved via OTRS, the file can be restored FASTILY 20:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No OTRS-confirmed permission for the image. The uploader has added the note: "composition of the shot was the uploader's decision". This is irrelevant for the following reasons: 1) Ideas are not copyrightable; 2) The one who creates the work is the copyright holder; 3) The author would not necessarily agree. Eleassar (t/p) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- This sort of hair-splitting doesn't improve Commons. I firmly believe that the work is free for all intents and purposes, but of course following legalese to above and beyond what's necessary is not feasible in this particular case, so I give up. — Yerpo Eh? 17:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I firmly believe we should follow the established policies in all cases. If there is significant doubt that an image is not free, it doesn't belong here. Keeping it may only lead to us being accused of the double standards. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- You miss my point, but, like I said, I give up. — Yerpo Eh? 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that you "firmly believe that the work is free for all intents and purposes". Well, how can you be so sure without having asked the copyright holder? It may be true or not. We have something that is called the precautionary principle here. Arguments that amount to "we can get away with it" run counter to Commons' aims. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just drop it, I said I give up, so this file can be deleted. — Yerpo Eh? 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you give up or not. The file will be deleted if it is not free or there is significant doubt. Otherwise, it will be kept. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. If OTRS permission is recieved, the file may be restored FASTILY 20:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently built and the architect does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It should be discussed whether the depicted building has enough originality to be copyrightable per the law and courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The standards for architecture are generally like photos or anything else; any but the most purely derivative works are copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative of non-free content FASTILY 20:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation, the images of the Muppets are still protected Andibrunt (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please check Waldorf Statler Advertisement.jpg and Waldorf Statler Wall Painting.jpg as well, to have the common picture. I dont agree with the notion of co violation. Serten (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Recipies like this are to be found on a Disney family website, to make them is even recommmanded by disney. [8] Insofar a photo of those cookies is no copyright infringement at all, to the contrary. Best regards Serten (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Creating a cupcake for personal use, is not the same thing as publishing a reproduction for free commercial re-use. However I like this photo so much, that I created an educational derived work from it, potentially useful to illustrate copyright discussions, see File:Waldorfstatlercookies redacted.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative of non-free content FASTILY 20:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently built and the architect does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Can some link to post here to see if it is really a copyright? --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- The building looks to me as many mosques do, little originality. Therefore, it seems a bit doubtful whether this building is copyrightable at all. --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The standards for architecture are generally like photos or anything else; any but the most purely derivative works are copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If this picture violates the copyright, then why should immediately be deleted? --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of non-free content FASTILY 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
