Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/18
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
No FoP in Australia for such works. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreed, will delete as part of image upload cleanup russavia (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
MNA Network MNA Network 06:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per request of the author, unambiguous advertising Trijnsteltalk 11:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Re-upload of color-reduced version of copyvio-deleted File:Family Guy.jpg. Color-reduction doesn't remove copyright. Uploader edit-warred to remove speedy-deletion tag. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Ray Garraty (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is not similar to the original version like the told the User:Ray Garraty, and his response was, "Are you JOKING?". --Archcaster 17:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- My statement "I do′t think so", were the responses to your arguments. Maybe you do′t understand me so. English is not my native language. Your image is a derivative work. --Ray Garraty (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Are you joking" is indeed an appropriate answer to your claim "This file is not related to the original photo."[1]
- Just as a reality-check: compare File:Archcaster.jpg to this low-res or high-res original version. Besides of the reduced colors it is fully identical. In addition, contrary to your claim it is not your own work, as this minor color-reduction doesn't even make it a strict derivative due to the missing originality of this step. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Túrelio's analysis is correct, delete --Isderion (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no need to discuss further, clear copyvio/derivative work Denniss (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Close (color-faded) derivative of original image ([2]) posted in 2012 at http://blog.solangeperez.com/2012/11/18/the-big-bang-theory-flash-mob/. Contrary to uploaders claim it is not his original work. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted + user blocked for a week. --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
COM:PENIS Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, poorly photographed own penis snapshot. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
copyvio. exact image found at this artwork's author, Toshihiko Hosaka website [3]
Nightingale (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Cropped section of non-free image here. Authorship claim invalid. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. The image could have been nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant copyvio. Thomas.W (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Too bad quality. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Out of scope. Moros y Cristianos 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I gave the wrong name to the file. I uploaded and used a new file in the page. This one can be deleted. Francesco.quagliati (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The correct file name is File:Uffici motorizzazione Venezia.jpg and that file is used in it.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Uploader reqested unused file.--Fanghong (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I gave the wrong name to the file. I uploaded and used a new file in the page. This one can be deleted. Francesco.quagliati (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The correct file name is File:Public-housing-units-Salo.jpg and that file is used in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/ Uploader requested unused file.--Fanghong (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I gave the wrong name to the file. I uploaded and used a new file in the page. This one can be deleted. Francesco.quagliati (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The correct file name is File:Piliar-Motorway.jpg and that is used in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/ Uploader requested unused file.--Fanghong (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Taivo (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Taivo (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Invalid permission claim (just a URL to the source). Image is not free nor is there any indication that the uploader is the rights owner or author. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no evidence of claimed license evident. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. No license information available on source URL, not even information about who owns the copyright to the image, which, since the source is a fanblog of some sort, most probably is someone other than the owner of the blog. Thomas.W (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy - copyvio. INeverCry 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
imho 'bad quality', no 'educational use', and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality blurry photo; no indication of compensating uniqueness nor importance. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Here I agree with Roland: bad quality. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with you . I am going to delete this image. Thanks for reporting.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work, size and quality looks more like taken from a website Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete So small photos (85×98 pixels) are worthless. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
no es original DenisMarceloCabezas (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a valid reason to delete. The licence is correct and the file is widely used in many languages. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This artwork was created circa 1963 and is most likely owned (copyright wise) by the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and most likely not in the public domain. While the sculpture itself might lack a copyright statement by the artist on the work itself, I am 95% sure it's owned by the Church. Sarah (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - articles belong on wikipedias, not commons Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Confirming the tagged chemical mistake. Unused, have File:Alclometasone.svg as correct replacement. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
an editing mistake Ashaverus (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Should be N-ethyl not methyl; superceded by png and svg that are correct. DMacks (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitI2qqnu4bWalOr7-y6qa--m7vo7kMy9_1H7JECve_1Q0TYCCRD6MPCkQEPkgRucadgzWr-CvKY5cih2eg22TEuxLMNhcq1_1xVGhS-QOG5Ldq83gF7c8EsNAuTnh6rFmLlLVZb4g6MMm-mdILQZMa2OuLdFAjdYn_1ikGtxL6X_1kwHUE4jgnKwVq-1K7XJcbKiBMAauozf81rfpCNYHYBSkYucwf-0qwJtRIwfllpcyc58ltULeANM6g7dPqd-B6X7iLDzbwLZfNJKer4PYMygmwa6vukOVesb9ohnFrcXNLHj8f_1mlpg6pirlzFuifz0IfUaiiVNkiZoH_1FErccQhHLS0gZhZ93N4n_19iEIIxGwZuYUNQ0F3Vl3hiR0C5FxZ8MkG3j_1O9Ddx3Enqu5K8xwYraS9T5azFbkjdmJVcMzT2xjjIeM2DvFA7gv_1m2zfQlaNrtFIOBnTSm2mbFhJ-5QZMxAeHtXhmkfIj0fgTJ4rveqvaf5EYWTuquSXiJjlfU09uQYATjGpzn0A4A1glkGoVALATGXnozzo0zdSBJXj6NSPf9gsMak7IdSCrT95Kgiu72dQm45VthgmJjyqpOshVHUXZkmpujGA1-qFJ6uB8SkpKl3dGOS9LSZKclbLc00qrkAB9xmkN1HmELvpPMzYzBDkXhs2mbZp2DngsXsbtzhi7SsawOCp-oOEO9W_1OGnxBLtCxRIn1WDuTjrbCAvfxJcNxp9byvkGZwR2vzidl0cSfHHbuorDDGFNHWKnN9Pa437o5cFJLhTxYdPkQHsHjk64H-Lnb9gvv_1O_11ZnI6UXQBZg03_1K5_1aHn3YM5bINpl87l0qt1LMalb1eAcWGwcxDMiZXGymjy2oLHMu-k5ZzzfSjqUbm4k3jTjFODAnQN2SmBsLabKjdm0YgZa9KRP5v1kT37RjHRCEQD7vC3lv9HrnQe8QuEuRSImKSL0WFFBlaG9Y7OtaWKaaMVVYY6zA0Hf4JzqvlCiDdLresOE5Wg1ehdXcfE_1pdzSfLe1Hm1EHsh2AS0G6_1EwXGSfevIpWPNrlaprCEcbVTXRWJUlORud6PKrfSoqy6Wmxm1Em4J6TofFxCfmlFm4bCO8XGFANT7dLrUxGrf4bUCfxd0KIS1B5qpJ91IXeQOlidkEtbVtx3hRjIe0zlPm1Ug7FWiVl9nLOf1uviLvj70W6ZnigLqwuKCYx8snjDJKjxfhDbXcBDhz4mlSDP7-MtAGb5ePlCaKYLgXt-gHR4jvdFwFjb-SEvfIgY9DyoYF2wBLq7qVHwIO0dLsDVJHta9Pp96J2_1lhS17_13_1l_1Toh2dwN4tZ1kw8DA -mattbuck (Talk) 07:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have personally taken this picture on a 41-year old model mother of two, for educational purposes. It is useful to see how a vagina can widen and open after a double delivery, as is this case. This model also has a slight anal prolapse, due to problems during her second delivery. The model thoroughly shaved her vulva just before the photo shooting, in order to provide full view of her motherly vagina. This picture is also to be found on other websites, but I, and only I, am the owner. And I full authorise the free publication and sharing of this picture for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucebruce (talk • contribs)
- Comment See Commons:OTRS section "I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published"; an email to the Commons OTRS may clarify and verify authorship. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- is there any educational purpose for this picture? Gardenparty (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Although the image has been published elsewhere, I do not doubt that the uploader is the author. The image uploaded here is higher resolution than available at those sites; the model is the same across images uploaded by the same user; and the EXIF data suggests that the same camera has been used. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This photo has educational value, as specified in description. Of course, OTRS would be good. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
To provide further proof that I am the legitimate author of this picture, I have uploaded two other pictures of this model taken during the same photo shooting, with the same camera. These new uploads are not to be found elsewhere on the web, and can be freely added to Wikimedia Commons categories for educational purposes. The purpose of these pictures is to show the changes in female vulvas and bodies after delivery; and also to show how a middle-aged mother of two can still have an attractive body. File:Vagina_of_a_41-year_old_mother_of_two.jpg File:Breasts_of_a_41-year_old_mother_of_two.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucebruce (talk • contribs)
- Keep Allegation listed as reason for deletion nomination seems to me sufficiently disproven. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation. INeverCry 00:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
May be a copyvio (derivative work). TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (derivative work). No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- As stated before, all of Film i Väst's pictures are clearly marked with Creative Commons licence CC BY 3.0. See "Creative Commons erkännande" at the linked page as source. "Film i Väst" was co-producer of the movie "The Passion of Marie". /Ariam (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balladen om Marie Krøyer poster.jpg -- the file has been renamed so it does not show up above this later DR as usual. The source is clearly CC-BY. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Jim. INeverCry 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
en:Halim is a movie, so this image seems to be a screencap or other item from that and therefore nonfree. Certainly no evidence of ownwork from uploader, since it has watermark of some website. DMacks (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be scan of printed image (newspaper or magazine?), no evidence uploader has their permission. DMacks (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly not own work.[4] --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No proof of authorization TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
User page being misused for promotion/advertising alone. Rahul Bott (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedwig in Washington (talk • contribs)
- Comment : no that would not be out of scope if it wasn't a copyvio. See El último hombre bueno on Spanish Wikipedia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The same picture can be found on a 19 april 2008 online posting : http://dafina.net/forums/read.php?52,102100,210512#msg-210512 --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The rest uploads from this user were taken from web and uploaded on commons under false self made claim. This also seems to be taken from web, as is in low quality and resolution. Oleola (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Image is not in the public domain. The source website clearly states that the material is copyright, and prohibits unauthorized reproduction.
2. The images appears badly (and perhaps intentionally) distorted to cast its subject in a disparaging light
3. It’s a likely violation of WP:MUG. Image is posted along with an arrest order issued by the Beijing government for “disturbing public order.” The subject is a religious leader who the Chinese government regards as a political enemy, roughly on par with the Dalai Lama.TheBlueCanoe (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Needs OTRS. I emailed his people here in Edmonton to provide a better image. If they don't respond I will try the other cities. There are images of him all over google so there should be no reason they can't provide one for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Davives 轻语者 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This image is extracted from Image:1999Chi Master Proc big.jpg which was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Davives. -M.nelson (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
A photography designated as being in the public domain, but which was published in the Moroccan weekly La Vie éco (as indicated after 'Source' : http://www.lavieeco.com/news/politique/maroc-les-partis-finiront-ils-par-tuer-les-syndicats--18564.html) on January 11, 2011. --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free poster. Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image. Eleassar (t/p) 12:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image as well as architecture in the background. Eleassar (t/p) 12:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free poster. Eleassar (t/p) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free text. Eleassar (t/p) 12:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free poster. Eleassar (t/p) 12:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free images. Eleassar (t/p) 12:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free images. Eleassar (t/p) 12:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image. Eleassar (t/p) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure which image does our respectable nominator have in mind. Member of Slovene Antifascist resistance movement which is in focus is wearing at least three different antifa emblems. I assume the image in question is in the flag. If the nominator took a look at this category he would found out the symbol seen in the flag is the emblem of Anonymous which is in PD: see File:Anonymous_emblem.svg, File:Anonymous_Logos.svg and File:Anon-thumbnail-picture.png.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 10:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks for having provided this information. I guess I should have really looked a bit more for this flag. As the copyright status has been clarified in my opinion, I I withdraw my nomination. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You. I apologise if my comment was a bit harsh but it's annoying to put time and energy into deletion nominations like this one.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free text. Eleassar (t/p) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free photos. Eleassar (t/p) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free poster. Eleassar (t/p) 13:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free flags. Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-free masks. Eleassar (t/p) 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As I understand, this image has been taken from a Nature paper. I am not sure that it is trivial enough to be not copyrightable. Anyway, the given license is incorrect. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid, that copyright applies here. Taivo (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously violates copyright Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work from wallpaper of unclear origin. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this file as a test. It was never used. As uploader, I request that it be deleted. Deer*lake (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Why no request for deletion until almost 2 & 1/2 years after upload? -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about it. The idea of deleting it just came to mind recently for no particular reason. Deer*lake (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful copyright, looks like a derivative of a poster. The description states a certain Minyukov as author, but no evidence that the uploader has the permission or is the author himself. A.Savin 18:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced sign, uploader was a known scok who uploaded bogus material. Fry1989 eh? 18:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-educational, out of scope and potentially copyvio (http://www.songguo.com/hotelinfo_1301000004.html) Wcam (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The Flag of Edmonton is non-free, and the shape is not that of Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal picture; low quality; no indication of consent on behalf of the baby by a legal guardian. Pete F (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete not useful in scope. Caption "soy yo", "it's me", suggesting photo is of the uploader as a toddler, which may remove the consent problem but creates problem of uploader not being the actual photographer. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
EXIF data sources image to Marilu Baez, a commercial photographer, doesn't match the source listed in the image info Ytoyoda (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unless we get OTRS-permission, that Marilu Baez and User Klapax1 are the same person. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, unused personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Contains non-PD-old photograph of a book. Eleassar (t/p) 21:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Book from 2011 or later, so its cover is protected by copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Maserati's brochure shot from 1991, just photoshopped onto another background. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 22:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Author certainly does not have copyright to any of these images. The pictures are taken by various well-known photographers. Bazaan (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons:IDENT; also out of scope (personal image) Isderion (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
投稿者ではなく、法人に著作権がある可能性があるため。 Bearpark (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Tanabe city, Wakayama, Japan http://www.aikis.or.jp/~keisotyo/kabi/Cunn_eleg.htm
田辺市の職員が業務として撮影したものを投稿した可能性が高く、法人が著作権を保持している可能性があるため。
I think that the staff of Tanabe city was more likely to contribute the photograph which he photographed as duties. I think that he does not have a copyright, and his corporation (Tanabe city) may hold the copyright of the photograph. --Bearpark (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. --miya (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for his requests is no basis! Mr. Bearpark caused the trouble in a jaWP-article concerned with this file. This request is a retaliation, therefore I strongly warn for him.--Ashtray (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. Furthermore, this request is invalid because this is retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark). Should not delete the image.--ikedat76 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. The nominator seems to suggest that the uploader published a photograph which was made as a work for hire for Tanabe City, and thus it violates the City's copyright. However, no verifiable evidence is provided to support the assumption(s) so far. The cited external website does not present evidence for it being a work for hire, because it is not the City's web site, and is very likely to be owned by the uploader (a similar photo is published there, but the uploader has one with a better quality). Even though we delete when in significant doubt, I don't believe it applies here. There is a good chance that the uploader might have done it with his/her personal time and resources. whym (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
撮影者ではなく、法人が著作権を持つ可能性がある。 Bearpark (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Tanabe city, Wakayama, Japan
http://www.aikis.or.jp/~keisotyo/kabi/mizukabi.htm
田辺市の職員が業務として撮影したものを投稿した可能性が高く、法人が著作権を保持している可能性があるため。
I think that the staff of Tanabe city was more likely to contribute the photograph which he photographed as duties. I think that he does not have a copyright, and his corporation (Tanabe city) may hold the copyright of the photograph. --Bearpark (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I find that a bit surprising for an image uploaded to Commons >7 years ago. I don't see a date-stamp on the above linked page aikis.or.jp. Has it any in Japanese? --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Japanese --Bearpark (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- ??? I was asking whether the above linked external website has a date-stamp. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I am the thing which is weak in English.--Bearpark (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(経緯)田辺市には、有名な微生物学者が昔いて、その人物を田辺市が記念して、微生物の顕微鏡写真を展示している。その展示物かもしれないし、展示していないものかもしれないが、法人である田辺市が著作権を持つ可能性がある。--Bearpark (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(Process) In Tanabe-city, there is a famous microbiologist in old days, and Tanabe-city memorializes the person, and display the micrograph of the microbe. Regardless of a showpiece, a non-showpiece, I think that Tanabe-city that is a corporation may have the copyright of the photograph. --Bearpark (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- But these are all assumptions, we need evidence.
- I have checked the above-linked website in archive.org and found that the oldest archived version from June 20, 2006[5] had the same appearance as today and already included the nominated image. As there was no older archive, we have no evidence whether the image was published on that website earlier than it was published on Commons (December 2005). In addition, the image on that website has only a resolution of 400x300 pix, whereas our version is of higher resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
日本の著作権法によると、職員が業務として撮影した写真は、職員には著作権は無く、法人が著作権を所有します。この例外は、両者に特別な契約がある場合です。また、他の可能性も、私は考えます。もし、顕微鏡のある職場で、業務とは無関係に職員が撮影をし、彼が写真を投稿した場合。この場合は、撮影者(職員)が写真の著作権を持ちます。しかし、「その行為をした」と職員は公表しないと私は考えます。彼は、職場の機材を、私的に流用したことになりますから。
彼が、彼の自宅又はプライベートで撮影したという確証がない限り、公務員が、彼の職務に絡んで撮影した写真は、だれが本当の著作権者なのかはよくわからないものになってしまいます。撮影者が法律を知らない場合もあるので。--Bearpark (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the photograph which the staff photographed as duties, the staff does not have the copyright, and, according to the Japanese Copyright Act, a corporation owns a copyright. When, as for this exception, both have a special contract. In addition, I think about other possibility. When, in the workplace with the microscope, the staff photographs it regardless of duties, and he contributes a photograph. In this case a photographer (the staff) has the copyright of the photograph, however I think that the staff does not announce, "I did the act". Because he would misappropriate the machine parts of the workplace personally.
Without the conclusive evidence which he photographed in his home or private, the photograph which a public employee photographed as his work does not know it well who is a true copyright holder. Because a photographer may not know the law … . --Bearpark (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Bearpark, I have asked a Japanese-speaking colleague to look into this. --Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep You should assume good faith, Bearpark. There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. --miya (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. Furthermore, this request is invalid because this is retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark). Should not delete the image.--ikedat76 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for his requests is no basis! Mr. Bearpark caused the trouble in a jaWP-article concerned with this file. This request is a retaliation, therefore I strongly warn for him.--Ashtray (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. The nominator seems to suggest that the uploader (who is also believed by the nominator to be the site owner of the source page) published a photograph which was made as a work for hire for Tanabe City, and thus it violates the City's copyright. However, no verifiable evidence is provided to support the assumption(s) so far. The cited external website does not present evidence for it being a work for hire, because it is not the City's web site, and is very likely to be owned by the uploader (a similar photo is published there, but the uploader has one with a better quality). Even though we delete when in significant doubt, I don't believe it applies here. There is a good chance that the uploader might have done it with his/her personal time and resources. whym (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
撮影者に著作権は無く、法人が保持している可能性がある Bearpark (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please
This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Tanabe city, Wakayama, Japan http://www.aikis.or.jp/~keisotyo/kabi/nakama.htm
田辺市の職員が業務として撮影したものを投稿した可能性が高く、法人が著作権を保持している可能性があるため。
I think that the staff of Tanabe city was more likely to contribute the photograph which he photographed as duties. I think that he does not have a copyright, and his corporation (Tanabe city) may hold the copyright of the photograph. --Bearpark (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. --miya (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with User:Miya, there is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. Furthermore, this request is invalid because this is retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark). Should not delete the image.--
123.198.85.212 11:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I missed. Sign again.--ikedat76 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC) - Keep The reason for his requests is no basis! Mr. Bearpark caused the trouble in a jaWP-article concerned with this file. This request is a retaliation, therefore I strongly warn for him.--Ashtray (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. The nominator seems to suggest that the uploader published a photograph which was made as a work for hire for Tanabe City, and thus it violates the City's copyright. However, no verifiable evidence is provided to support the assumption(s) so far. The cited external website does not present evidence for it being a work for hire, because it is not the City's web site, and is very likely to be owned by the uploader (a similar photo is published there, but the uploader has one with a better quality). Even though we delete when in significant doubt, I don't believe it applies here. There is a good chance that the uploader might have done it with his/her personal time and resources. whym (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
撮影者は著作権を保持しておらず、田辺市が保持している可能性があるため。 Bearpark (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please
This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Tanabe city, Wakayama, Japan http://www.aikis.or.jp/~keisotyo/kabi/nakama.htm
田辺市の職員が業務として撮影したものを投稿した可能性が高く、法人が著作権を保持している可能性があるため。
I think that the staff of Tanabe city was more likely to contribute the photograph which he photographed as duties. I think that he does not have a copyright, and his corporation (Tanabe city) may hold the copyright of the photograph. --Bearpark (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. --miya (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. Furthermore, this request is invalid because this is retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark). Should not delete the image.--ikedat76 (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for his requests is no basis. Mr. Bearpark caused the trouble in a jaWP-article concerned with this file. This request is a retaliation. It is not worth considering!--Ashtray (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. The nominator seems to suggest that the uploader published a photograph which was made as a work for hire for Tanabe City, and thus it violates the City's copyright. However, no verifiable evidence is provided to support the assumption(s) so far. The cited external website does not present evidence for it being a work for hire, because it is not the City's web site. Even though we delete when in significant doubt, I don't believe it applies here. There is a good chance that the uploader might have done it with his/her personal time and resources. whym (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
1986 work by Franc Kvaternik (1940-); per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 11:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This artwork was part of an exhibit in Los Angeles, USA, but there is no Freedom of Panorama in the US for modern 2D artwork, only for buildings and landscapes. Leoboudv (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This is really a prop so its only temporary artwork and US FOP laws shouldn't even cover it since it can be removed the next day. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 01:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Files by Željko Heimer, missing OTRS-confirmed permission. A similar case as Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer.
- File:Bale (grb).gif
- File:Barban (grb).gif
- File:Belica.gif
- File:Blato coat of arms.gif
- File:Brtonigla (grb).gif
- File:Cerovlje (grb).gif
- File:Donji kraljevec.gif
- File:Dubrovacko primorje coat of arms.gif
- File:Fažana (grb).gif
- File:Funtana.gif
- File:Gracisce.gif
- File:Groznjan.gif
- File:Janjina coat of arms.gif
- File:Korcula coat of arms.gif
- File:Liznjan.gif
- File:Motovun.gif
- File:Oprtalj.gif
- File:Orebic coat of arms.gif
- File:Pojezerje coat of arms.gif
- File:Slivno coat of arms.gif
- File:Ston coat of arms.gif
- File:Tar-vabriga.gif
- File:Topusko Coat of Arms.gif
- File:Vela luka coat of arms.gif
- File:Visnjan.gif
- File:Vizinada.gif
- File:Vrsar.gif
- File:Zupa dubrovacka coat of arms.gif
Eleassar (t/p) 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jan Joosten
[edit]Unknown author's artwork put up on 1989-4-20 by Chuo ward, Tokyo. No FOP in Japan.
Nightingale (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Rene olivera
[edit]User Rene olivera uploaded these files:
- File:René Olivera 1.JPG (unused personal photo)
- File:Wki.jpg (unused personal photo)
- File:Bodeguita del Medio.jpg (inferior copy of File:La bodeguita del Medio.jpg)
- File:La bodeguita del Medio.jpg (contains watermark and @) Taivo (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Yereee 2013-06-16 17-09.jpg
- File:Garden 2013-06-16 17-09.jpg
- File:May mosi 2013-06-16 17-09.jpg
- File:With wife 2013-06-16 17-08.jpg
- File:Friends 2013-06-16 17-08.jpg
- File:Home 2013-06-16 17-08.jpg
- File:Beach 2013-06-16 17-07.jpg
- File:Yassin 2013-06-16 17-07.jpg
- File:Yah 2013-06-16 17-06.jpg
- File:With friends 2013-06-16 17-06.jpg
- File:Snow 2013-06-16 17-06.jpg
- File:Mtaa 2013-06-16 17-05.jpg
- File:School 2013-06-16 17-05.jpg
- File:Danmark 2013-06-16 17-04.jpg
- File:Red street 2013-06-16 17-04.jpg
- File:Wife and kids 2013-06-16 17-04.jpg
- File:Aljumaa 2013-06-16 17-03.jpg
- File:Familly 2013-06-16 17-03.jpg
- File:Yasin 2013-06-16 17-02.jpg
- File:Yep 2013-06-16 17-02.jpg
- File:Ramadhan 2013-06-16 17-02.jpg
- File:Beach 2013-06-16 17-02.jpg
- File:With friends 2013-06-16 14-15.jpg
- File:Rahaaa 2013-06-16 14-07.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
original research, out of scope
- File:PROYECTO SOBRE CALIDAD DE VIDA.pdf
- File:Calidad de Vida actividad 1.pdf
- File:Folleto de calidad de vida.pdf
- File:Cuarta tarea.pdf
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlascakes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Article submission denied, business cards and such are out of scope here.
- File:Press-img.png
- File:CarlasCakes.jpg
- File:Revelvet carlascakes.jpg
- File:Peanut Butter carlascakes.jpg
- File:Marshmellow carlascakes.jpg
- File:Cupcakes in the Cart carlascakes.JPG
- File:Dulce de Leche carlascakes.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of clip-art, not own work.
- File:PPPDP.png
- File:Programacion.jpg
- File:Planificacion de proyecto.jpg
- File:Nueva vision de la planeacion.png
- File:PLANEACION de los proyectos.jpg
- File:Planearrr.png
- File:Planeacion de proyectos.png
- File:Bienvenida-pert-cpm.png
- File:Nueva vision.png
- File:Contextogp.jpg
- File:Portafolioooo.jpg
- File:Gestion proyectos.jpg
- File:ImportanciaProy1.jpg
- File:PLANEACION..png
- File:Planificación por concenso.jpg
- File:Interrelacionando funciones.JPG
- File:Contexto de la planeación.png
- File:Mesa de trabajo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused charts.
- File:Diagrama de Gantt.gif
- File:Pert.gif
- File:Programacion de proyectos.gif
- File:Cpm..png
- File:Etapas de Pre-inversión.png
- File:Ciclo de vida Cp.jpg
- File:Funciones interrelacionadas.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cursosevilla (talk · contribs)
[edit]- 1: File:Cabero.pdf original research
- 2: File:Google Reader RSS.jpg screenshot, scope questionable
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JOSHIC1101 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private file storage. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johanexisyavi12344321 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jovildrake (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-25.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs-- 2013-06-18 19-24.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-24.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-21.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-20.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-19.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-16.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-13.jpg
- File:Steven Henson; and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-12.jpg
- File:Steven Henson- and the three little pigs- 2013-06-18 19-11.jpg
Isderion (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is a very private conversation. I'm afraid, that something bad can happen, if we keep this. Police can help you, if any help is needed at all, but Commons cannot. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
private pics, out of scope
- File:Capo007.jpg
- File:Cap0.jpg
- File:Capo0716.jpg
- File:Ktireluis7.jpg
- File:Ktireluis007.jpg
- File:Ktireluis.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MarioGallegos (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It is unclear, what is happening on these photos. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Taivo. Also out of scope and too small to be of any use. Moros y Cristianos 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, article submission denied.
- Delete Logo © Copyright 2011. DIVERSI-TECH Inc. All Rights Reserved. . Moros y Cristianos 08:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Logo © Copyright 2011. DIVERSI-TECH Inc. All Rights Reserved. . Moros y Cristianos 08:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Simpybharti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission. Out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Building view.png
- File:Gallery 5 1.jpg
- File:Gallery 14 1.jpg
- File:Gallery 3 1.jpg
- File:Hollywood Heights II, Zirakpur, Chandigrh.jpg
- File:Hollywood Heights 1, Vip Road, Zirakpur.jpg
- File:Gallery 2 1.jpg
- File:3 BHK super spasious Flats in hollywood Heights.jpg
- File:2040, 3BHK.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all, all are unused. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ssanchezarenas (talk · contribs)
[edit]website spam, out of scope.
- File:Mejorcabeceraexcss.jpg
- File:Logotipodetercerageneracion.jpg
- File:Logodecabecera3ra.png
- File:Logotipo Extra Confidencial SS de 3ra Generación.png
- File:Cabecera de Facebook de Extra Confidencial SS.png
- File:Logotipo oficial de Extra Confidencial SS.jpg
- File:Icono Extra Confidencial SS.jpeg
- File:Extraconfidencialsslogo.jpg
- File:Extraconfidencialsslogo2.png
- File:Tendencias de las propiedades Periodicas.JPG
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
copyvio; photo of a newspaper
Nightingale (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thepaffection (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:IDENT: no assurance this was taken in a public place and/or had consent of the subject for broad publication. Pete F (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? Of course the subject consented for publication, and I am the author of the picture. Contact him if you don't believe me. But stop destroying informations on WP, you'd rather try to bring some more. Do you really know what an encyclopedia is?
- I'd be happy to follow up and get the image restored if everything is in order -- but you have left no way to get in touch with you. -Pete F (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
irrelevant GreenpointX (Diskussion) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) GreenpointX (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: well inside COM:SCOPE JuTa 14:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant picture, deletion request by author GreenpointX (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Excellent photo about the plane, well in scope. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no reason to delete. --Denniss (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Wird nicht verwendet, Bild hab ich vor Ewigkeiten aufgenommen und muss daher nicht mehr online sein. J-PG ¬_¬ 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Denniss (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused photo. Description is only in Chinese language. Very good quality, so I would not rule out copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- The same as the photo of zh:姜鸿, http://epaper.hf365.com/hfwb/html/2011-04/09/content_404343.htm .--miya (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
See my rationale at COM:VPC. Namely, that the CC license is patently incorrect, given the file description (at Flickr), which just says "no known copyright restrictions" and links to Spaarnestad Photo (link), which seems to state the photographer is unknown and that the image was published in Life. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Follywood27
[edit]Here are all files, uploaded by User Follywood27 and not yet presented for deletion:
- File:Shaneel Singh (Follywood) 2013-06-01 23-22.jpg
- File:Sumeet Rauhneel Nath (Follywood) 2013-06-01 23-24.jpg
They are both unused personal photos. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Piper1324
[edit]Here are all files, uploaded by User Piper1324 and not yet presented for deletion:
They are both unused personal photos. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Carloscapuchino2
[edit]User Carloscapuchino2 has uploaded these files:
- File:Carlos Capuchino.jpg
- File:Carlos capuchino 7.jpg
- File:ERMOSO HOMBRE3 DE CHOCOLATE.jpg
- File:Footballmax.png
They are all unused personal images. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted / out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zetting Teoh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. They're only used on zh:游标卡尺的历史, which is nominated for deletion at the moment.
Trijnsteltalk 11:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
投稿者ではなく、法人に著作権がある可能性があるため。 Bearpark (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Nagano City Development Public Corporation
Because a photographer photographed that characters got on a monorail as duties on a specific day, it is considered that it was with a photograph of the about the same composition.
公式ページと似たような写真は、特定の日に撮影されたもので、法人の撮影者が業務として行っている可能性が高く、法人に無断で投稿された可能性がある。--Bearpark (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is a same photo on the official site of this zoo, http://www.johyama.com/ In order to keep, he uploader should have sent an OTRS mail which I found none. --miya (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Japan. Also, it can be violation of COM:TOYS. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Taivo. INeverCry 21:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
投稿者ではなく、法人が著作権を持つ可能性があるため Bearpark (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please. This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Nagano City Development Public Corporation http://www.johyama.com/
Because a photographer photographed that characters got on a monorail as duties on a specific day, it is considered that it was with a photograph of the about the same composition.
公式ページと似たような写真は、特定の日に撮影されたもので、法人の撮影者が業務として行っている可能性が高く、法人に無断で投稿された可能性がある。--Bearpark (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence of copyvio. According to the user talk page on jawp the uploader may be a staff of this zoo. --miya (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for his requests is no basis! Mr. Bearpark caused the trouble in a jaWP-article concerned with this file. This request is a retaliation, therefore I strongly warn for him.--Ashtray (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the uploader does not have the copyright of the image. Furthermore, this request is invalid because this is retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark). Should not delete the image.--ikedat76 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Japan. Also, it can be violation of COM:TOYS. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Taivo. INeverCry 21:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
投稿者ではなく、法人に著作権がある可能性があるため。 Bearpark (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, please. This image may have the copyright holder except the photographer. I would like deletion.
The corporation which is thought to be a copyright holder: Nagano City Development Public Corporation http://www.johyama.com/
Because a photographer photographed that characters got on a monorail as duties on a specific day, it is considered that it was with a photograph of the about the same composition.
公式ページと似たような写真は、特定の日に撮影されたもので、法人の撮影者が業務として行っている可能性が高く、法人に無断で投稿された可能性がある。--Bearpark (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is a same photo on the official site of this zoo, http://www.johyama.com/ .--miya (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Japan. Also, it can be violation of COM:TOYS. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Taivo. INeverCry 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image. Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The small image visible on the poster, which takes up only a small part of the photo, could probably be blurred out if it is a potential copyright problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a book cover.[6] I have no problem keeping this photograph if someone blurs it. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Book cover blurred.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 07:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Blurred. INeverCry 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free logos. Eleassar (t/p) 12:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If there's any actual copyright on the stylized clenched fist seen on banners, should qualify as de minimis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- De minimis is 'very unlikely' or even 'definitely not' in this case:[7] "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject. Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." or "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." --Eleassar (t/p) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is your evidence that the fist symbol is non-free? It looks to me pretty much like the a generic depiction of a fist commonly seen at protests around the world for some 50 years, and in use in other political logos since at least since the 1920s [8], but if there is some specific copyrighted aspect please explain, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many fists have been drawn through the history, but this does not mean a stylized drawing of a fist can't be copyrighted. It's a similar case like with coats of arms: any specific depiction is copyrighted to its author. I have not seen any that would be like the one pictured in the nominated file and the burden of the proof is on the uploader (or the one who wants to keep the file). --Eleassar (t/p) 16:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Clenched fist depicted here is exactly the same as this one from Serbia used in the struggle against Milošević's regime in the years 1999-2001 (see this and this). Flags with the same fists have also been used in Egyptian protests in 2010. Apparently this particular image is widely used as a symbol of resistance and revolt and therefore cannot be copyrighted by Allslovene Uprising (Vseslovenska vstaja) movement (or anyone else). M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 21:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the drawing has been freely licensed by its creator, and I seriously doubt that it is own work of the uploader of File:Otpor-serbian.jpg. Per COM:PRP, the claim that "The file is obviously common property." is not a legitimate reason to keep it. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- You claimed this logo in unique. Your statement above is: "I have not seen any that owould be like the one pictured in the nominated file and the burden of the proof is on the uploader."
- I proved this exact symbol/emblem has been commonly used worldwide for at least 15 years so makers of flags depicted in the photo nomitated for deletion can't be copyright holders. File:Otpor-serbian.jpg was probably uploaded by the member of Otpor! movement. It's similar to File:Anonymous Flag.svg (and its derivatives) which was uplodaded by the member of Anonymous group. Your doubt whether uploader truly is copyright holder or not is irrelevant here. M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- De minimis is 'very unlikely' or even 'definitely not' in this case:[7] "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject. Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." or "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." --Eleassar (t/p) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation, the protestors are the subject, flags are de minimis. INeverCry 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 12:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- How about pictures in Category:2013_Taksim_Gezi_Park_protests... Material in protests is not copyrighted... Noone requested deletion of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gezi_park%C4%B1_-_Flickr_-_Burak_Su_(52).jpg for example. --Miha (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Slovenian Copyright and Related Rights Act does not mention 'material in protests' as copyright free material.[9] In addition, 'similar stuff exists' is not a valid reason to keep non-free material. I guess someone should nominate these files for deletion too. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Drawing takes up small portion of image and is COM:DM. INeverCry 22:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 12:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The text is here too short for copyright. The photo of a politician is de minimis. For example, the photo presented for deletion is big, but if someone will crop the photo of politician out, then the photo will still be very small and inferior quality. Taivo (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- The text says: "Zoki - he is finished" which refers to the politician in the photo (or drawing). The photo is therefore used to visually identify the person that the text describes. It is therefore a key element of the poster and as such unlikely de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Key elements are a question and an answer. "Zoki - is he finished ? ? ?" (Eleassar seems to be forgetting those question marks, because this is not a statement, it's a rhetorical question) is answered by "Answer is the same as the previous one" (Odgovor je enak prejšnjemu) which is a quotation of Zoran Janković's son Jure from his appearance in front of investigation committee (see this and this). Therefore banner deals with Zoran (Zoki) as well as with Jure Janković. I just can't see how that tiny picture could be a key element of this "Q&A style" banner, it's obviously de minimis.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 11:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- This does in no way disprove the claim that the photo is used to visually identify the person that the text describes. Per COM:DM, it is unlikely de minimis: "a key part of the subject [the poster]. [...] Removing it would make the derivative work radically different." --Eleassar (t/p) 12:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tiny drawing like this one could never be a key element of a demonstration banner because it's not visible from distance. Text is a key element and—as explained—is related to both Jankovićs, not just Zoran. Drawing in actually Very likely DM: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)". M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:DM. INeverCry 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free photo and text. Eleassar (t/p) 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The photo is quite small and I am not totally sure, that the text is here copyrightable. Probably this needs some knowledge about Slovenian inner politics. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Nothing © here - banners text and design are IMO too simple. Banners depicted in this photo were made by the members of Education, Science and Culture Trade Union of Slovenia. "SVIZ Slovenije" stands for Sindikat vzgoje, izobraževanja, znanosti in kulture Slovenije -- www.sviz.si/eng/. Banners are a parody of education politics run by Janez Janša and Žiga Turk in 2012. These two politicians preferred private schools instead of maintaining high standard of public educational system. At that time Janša was a prime minister of Republic of Slovenia and Turk was a minister for education, science and culture. Šink and Škrinjar were either members of Turk's staff or members of Janša's political party. Brief translation of banners (from left to right):
(1)
"This will be my school network"
(2)
"To be extinguished: SERŠ Maribor" (actual public secondary school in Maribor) "Ordered by Žiga Turk To be extinguished by 31 Dec 2012 Damage estimation: not important"
(3)
"To be established Janez Janša School Centre Principle: Žiga Turk Validity: from 1 Jan 2013 Quality estimation: A+"
(4)
"To be established Janez Janša High School Principle: Jurij Šink Validity: from 1 Jan 2013 Quality estimation: A+"
(5)
"To be established Janez Janša Elementary School Principle: Mojca Škrinjar Validity: from 1 Jan 2013 Quality estimation: A+"
— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 15:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- In my view, parody is a creative work and as such copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Thank you for explaining, MZaplotnik! Parody is really creative work and as such copyrightable. (I was not sure at first, that this is parody.) Taivo (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep parody is part of all protests! and we host tons of pictures from protests. if we deleted them all where will they be kept for future generations? --Miha (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:DM. The protest is the subject not the individual signs, which don't take up more than 30% of the image. INeverCry 22:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep My intention was not to depict the architecture itself, but the banner at the exact location where it was left - at Republic Square (the main location of Slovenian protests).— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding de minimis, it is very unlikely de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject. Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." --Eleassar (t/p) 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:DM, banner is subject and obscures building. INeverCry 22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free sculpture in the background. The same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tretja vseslovenska vstaja 20130208 835.jpg. Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is clear de minimis. The sculpture is totally unimportant here and the photo does not show it correctly. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is not a coincidence that the sculpture 'Monument of Revolution' has been put in the centre of this photograph that pictures a protest. I therefore have to disagree with your opinion that the sculpture is totally unimportant. I'm not sure what you have in mind saying that the photo does not show it correctly. As far as I'm concerned, there is no correct way to show something. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep so clearly DM. Your "it is not a coincidence that" is pure speculation or OR. By your standards nothing is DM and everything is copyrighted which results in a flood of stupid DRs like this one. --Sporti (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Eleassar's claims are nothing but speculations. Demonstrators are in focus, photographer's intention was to take a picture of the crowd, monument is definitely not a key part of the picture because it is barely visible (I see no details, that's why we cay say it is not shown correctly). Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tretja vseslovenska vstaja 20130208 835.jpg was a completely different photo, monument took app. 1/3 of that photo.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 09:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The probability that the Monument of Revolution has been included in the image "accidentally and incidentally" is low no matter how visible it is. It is on the uploader to demonstrate that there is no significant doubt this is not true. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is not possible to proove subjective things like if something was included accidentally or not so it is totally irrelavent to speculate about it. --Sporti (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Stated otherwise, it is very unlikely de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject. Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." --Eleassar (t/p) 13:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is not key part of the subject! You could easily remove it just as you could remove one of the trees and the phoho wouldn't be radically different. --Sporti (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Obvious COM:DM, the sculpture is a TINY part of the photo way in the background. INeverCry 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Wird nicht verwendet, Bild hab ich vor Ewigkeiten aufgenommen und muss daher nicht mehr online sein. J-PG ¬_¬ 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing to do with that photo. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
since uploading this photo I have discovered that it is actually an Émile Gallé cat NOT a wemys Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Émile Gallé died in 1904, so his work should be PD-Old, and as an artist with articles about him in Wikipedias in 13 languages, images of his work are in project scope. This image can have the description and title changed. Unless there is some other issue, I don't see reason to delete; just correct the description and rename the file. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This image is identical to the superseded image in File:Blowing Up Balloons.jpg that I replaced with a higher-res version. Splintercellguy (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of identical higher resolution file —Mono 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio. Please delete all of this users uploads. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No free content, not only simple geometric shapes. Moreover, the logo is registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. --DaBler (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 3.1 logo.svg--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Too complex for {{Pd-textlogo}}, no permission —Mono 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Minamisatsuma, Kagoshima
[edit]contemporary artwork exhibited in 2009; No FOP in Japan.
Nightingale (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- (written in Japanese) 当画像は2009年5月に日本・鹿児島県南さつま市で開催された「吹上浜砂の祭典」にて撮影したものです。公式ウェブサイトによりますと、開催期間は5月2日から6日までの5日間ということで、終了後に砂像は解体されます。この点で「恒常的に展示される美術物」には該当しないと考えられます。また、公式サイトに写真撮影に関する注意事項は記載されておらず、現地においても特に注意はありませんでした(むしろ、写真撮影係のスタッフがいるほどです)ので、少なくとも写真撮影は自由に行えるものと考えられます。
- 残りは被写体となっている作品そのものが「美術物」にあたるかどうかですが、題材が人物(ガリレオ・ガリレイ)と建造物。これに著作性を認めるか否かが、最終的な落としどころかと考えられます。そもそも複数の作品を同時に写した構図ですので、会場の全体像を写したもの、とも解釈することも出来ます。--Sanjo (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan. INeverCry 21:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to this, but not an exact duplicate. This file is of a much lower resolution than the original and only shows the face of the man. The user who uploaded this claimed own work and only uploaded it to use it on these two Simple English Wikipedia articles, when the other, more detailed picture is used everywhere else. TCN7JM 12:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Painting by Moša Pijade (1890-1957). Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Croatia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a reproduction of the painting but of the famous Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language, which is supposed to show what it looked like when it was originally published. The painting just happens to be in the middle of it and is clearly not at the centre of interest, taking up less then a sixth of the space. The whole image has a very low resolution, the painting itself has about 160 × 250 pixels. It is faded, yellowed and has a disturbing brownish stripe running through its middle where the newspaper was folded. I cannot see how anybody should see this picture as an attempt at infringing on Moša Pijade’s copyright. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 07:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If the painting is unimportant, I have no problem keeping the image if it is cropped out or blurred. Currently, it is 'very unlikely' de minimis,[10] because the copyrighted work is a key part of the subject (the front page of Telegram): removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why should the painting be "a key part of the subject"? The subject is the declaration. The painting "is identifiable, but is a small part of" the first publication of the declaration, so that the declaration "cannot easily be shown without showing" the painting. The painting "is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable". That's the text of "very likely de minimis". Or take the criteria given in the guidelines. Not one of the criteria making it unlikely for de minimis to apply is met:
- The file is NOT in use to illustrate the painting.
- The file is NOT categorised in relation to Moša Pijade (the categories are Croatian language, History of Croatia, Newspapers of Croatia, 17 March and 1967).
- Moša Pijade is NOT referenced in the filename.
- Moša Pijade is NOT referenced in the description.
- The painting CAN be removed from the file without making the file useless.
- From other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) Moša Pijade is NOT the reason for the creation of the file. (To be honest, the first time I ever read about Pijade as a painter was in the caption under this painting in the newspaper; furthermore, I'm a linguist, so I'm definitely interested in this important declaration, not in a painting by a politician who also happened to be an artist in his spare time.)
- In principle, I wouldn't have anything against cropping or blurring the painting, either. But the general idea is, if I get it right, that if you could easily crop or blur a copyrighted work, then you don't have to do that because that indicates that the copyrighted work is not a central part of the file (with central in the idealistic sense, not the local one).
- --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 10:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The subjects are both the declaration as well as the front page of a newspaper and the painting is a key element of this page. I don't think that it was included "accidentally and incidentally," because the purpose was to depict the entire front cover with all of its elements. The painting is not a small part of the cover and the declaration can be easily shown without showing the painting. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The text of the declaration can of course be shown without the picture: [11] What is of interest here is of course what the declaration looked like on the cover of the newspaper when it was first published. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to cut it out like shown on the right. That is, the surroundings of the declaration have to be part of the picture, it is therefore unavoidable to have the painting on it. But I refuse to see how this drawing of a moderately talented hobby painter, whose name is not forgotten because he happened to be a leading communist and a close friend of Tito’s, should be "a key element" next to this truely historic declaration, which can arguably be seen as the beginning of the conflict that resulted in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s and which has been reprinted several times since Croatia's independence because of the enormous importance ascribed to it in modern Croatia. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 10:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I consider myself impartial. Daniel's arguments were more convincing for me, so it seems de minimis for me. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like DM applies FASTILY 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a scaled-down, later version of File:LaGouletteSqWT.jpg, as brought in through the French Wikipedia. (Unfortunately, this smaller version is the one used on a dozen wiki-projects.) – Quadell (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Recent sculptures, not in public domain. No freedom of panorama in France. 82.124.52.138 21:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Well, it's the old discussion: Does every photo of a historical monument in France (as such old enough not to be protected by any copyright) have to be deleted in Wikimedia Commons, if as some part of the photo can also be seen something manmade younger than 200 years??? ... I'd say the theme of the photo is the façade of this historical monument. The sculptures are not in the focus, but they can't be blurred. The photo is used in two wikipedias, and deleting it would just cause a loss of information. That would be sad for Wikipedia, but I sincerely doubt that this sadness will build up enough political pressure on the government of France to push trough a law on freedom of panorama which will please us wikipedians (I certainly would welcome such a law). Neither will it build up enough pressure on the city of Saintes to tear down anything manmade younger than 200 years of the façade of this museum, only to make it suitable to be pictured in Wikimedia Commons without any discussion. Again: The focus of the photo is the entrance and façade of this historical monument old enough not to be protected by any copyright, and all other things in the photo - windows and door, signs and sculptures, rock and dustbin - are just side decorations of it. ThomasPusch (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not every photo of a historical building in France has to be deleted from Commons, even if there is something new in it. This is called de minimis. Thomas argues, that sculptures are here de minimis. I do not agree. At first, this house is famous for these sculptures, and the photo is taken in such way, that it illustrates well the sculptures and their position. If the photo is about entrance, then we can crop the photo. Let's crop all sculptures away, so that entrance will remain. Another way is to get permission from sculptor (or if (s)he is dead, then from their heirs). Taivo (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't think DM is applicable here. Deleted as derivative of non-free content FASTILY 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Students performing in a stage show at Frontier Fiesta, University of Houston (1950s).jpg
[edit]This image is identical to the superseded image in File:Fronteir_Fiesta_Stage.jpg that I replaced with a higher-res version. Splintercellguy (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The file seems to be used in en.wiki and needs to be replaced there. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:PENIS Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not a bad quality, and the uploader's other penis pictures are with same quality. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 08:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)