Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/07/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive July 10th, 2013

Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Helpernot

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.

Duplicate of File:USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) 6a32983u original.jpg Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Duplicate processed -- in future please try to use {{Duplicate}} for dupe files russavia (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyright http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2013/07/10/actualidad/1373463638_398312.html Astillerense (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 22:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was uploaded believing that MRC NIMR owned the copyright when in fact it belongs to the Wellcome Trust. Please can this image be deleted. History of Medical Research (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio FASTILY 05:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I, the author of the image, request for it to be deleted. – Kaihsu Tai (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image of no realistic educational application: out of project scope. Rrburke (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Probably AP or DAPD photo, not US Government work. Ras67 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unclear status. Fry1989 eh? 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{copyvio|source=http://www.nbadoctors.com/chris-birdman-andersen-chi-lavrebbe-mai-detto/}} I Jethrobot (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This celebrity photo was previously published on the Giselle González Facebook page, although that file is at a lower resolution than the one uploaded here on Commons. And while the file has EXIF data, it still could have been copied from somewhere else. Perhaps if the upload to authenticate himself as the photographer? Senator2029 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It is a personal image of an unpopular human being Ijcsmc (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader requested deletion of unused personal image. INeverCry (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lacks author information, so GFDL is questionable. Looks like from scanned book. It may or may not be old enough to be PD. Unless we can find what book it came from, so the exact age of the photograph, it should probably be deleted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Superseded by File:Avery–Helm HD boundary map.png. — Ipoellet (talkf.k.a. Werewombat 05:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Source of underlying photograph not specified; watermarking in the upper left makes this appear to be potentially copyrighted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope Moros y Cristianos 05:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

just two more rather low quality penis pics (eps. File:Uncircumcised penis9999.jpg). Helpernot (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

just two more rather low quality penis pics (eps. File:Uncircumcised penis9999.jpg). Helpernot (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope Moros y Cristianos 06:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope. Moros y Cristianos 06:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Logo of small organization, article deleted in ru-wiki as self-PR Shakko (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was initially tagged by Dplcrnj as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: User request
Converted by me to DR, as it was uploaded (by initial nominator) nearly 1 year ago. As image is not in use, courtesy-deletion would be o.k. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Considering +30 copyvios and/or otherwise deleted images since 05.2013 (user registration) unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Additionally in scope of COM:FOP#Russia/{{NoFoP-Russia}} (building finished in 2007 and designed by Norman Foster, 1935—, ). See also Category:Russian FOP cases/Naberezhnaya Tower. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:МеркурийТауэр2013.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dubious claim of autorship. See file history 91.65.158.180 08:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too blurry and unfocussed to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too low technical quality to be of any use; thereby out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Obs.: High wiki use. The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. The night images are coming originally (per watermarks) mostly from http://gelio.livejournal.com, as File:Rodniki nsk.jpeg (see also http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=47324949&postcount=929 (2009, by "Gelio" = http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4000/gelionsk.63/0_34d72_8c19d2de_orig). The 1st image is per wiki mirror http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1066632 (= http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/50/250px-nsk_skyline.jpg) File:Nsk skyline.jpg = deleted with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nsk skyline.jpg (btw, also related with "Gelio"). Per above wiki mirror also available http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/50/250px-novosibirskopera.jpg = File:Novosibirskopera.jpg (uploaded in 2007 and deleted in 2011). Nominating also

derivated from this montage and previously deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nsk skyline.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Looking at the light effects on the paper, it looks as if this is a scan of a thin paper, more likely magazine paper than photo paper. I suspect that the own work claim is wrong and that this more likely is a scan of a magazine. I wonder what the strange border is supposed to mean. Stefan4 (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Personal photo I presume. No foreseeable use. I can also find a thumbnail, [1], on Linkedin. Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dubious own work: see [2] and [3]. Stefan4 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Software license given does not apply to this image. Invalid license. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. While the BSD license is not the most practical license for images, there's a long history of also applying it to icons and other graphics distributed along with BSD software. By extension, it should also be possible to apply it to graphics distributed without accompanying software. It might not be meaningful to speak of source code in relation to raster images, but condition (2) is certainly applicable. Condition (3) is also applicable if you interpret "software" broadly enough to mean any computer file, and in any case, the intent of the licensor is quite clear. en:WP:OTHERSTUFF is usually a bad argument in deletion discussions, but we do have over 1700 files in Category:BSD Licenses. I think if you want to change that, a one-by-one approach is not the way to go. LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Source for image is listed as [4]. On the bottom of the page it has a "All Rights Reserved" copyright which means it is incompatible with commons. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Broken svg...renders with black box covering most of image, both in nominal-size full-res preview and other scalings. Unused. DMacks (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

copied from other website http://malayalam.oneindia.in/img/2012/01/28-shibu-chakravarthy.jpg Rojypala (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete. It is a blatant copyright violation. I have marked with {{Copyvio}}. Francisco (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Probable autobiography photo; associated article in Portuguese Wikipedia (Nayane Carvalho) was deleted. Francisco (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. This image must be deleted per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. This image must be deleted per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This seal was created by the township of Brick, New Jersey, but that does not make it "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". Unintentional copyvio. – Quadell (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This official photo was published by the township of Brick, New Jersey, but that does not make it "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". Unintentional copyvio. – Quadell (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. This image must be deleted per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The source says the license requires "no derivatives" – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. This image must be deleted per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ошибочно загружен Pkvs (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

software spam, article submission declined (3x) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

old screenshot of x! edit counter with toolserver error. one-time use. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. This image must be deleted per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

no encyclopedic value - likely a copyright violation, too (see the notice on the bottom of the image) High Contrast (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

not sure about license Froliom (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official website of Millz Premium, where this image is used and was presumably first published, does not provide us with any information on intellectual property. We must therefore assume that it is not licensed and cannot be used on the Wikimedia projects. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was initially tagged by Luca Aless as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Blurry photo Didym (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about deleting the following file because it was blurry, but even if it doesn't get deleted it wont be a problem for me --Luca Aless (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Possible copyvio. There is no proof of {{PD-USGov}}. According to Life magazine, © Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only. Takabeg (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Affected: File:Korean War Montage.jpg Takabeg (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Empty category because all templates where moved. Pyfisch (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Btw, no related uploads by user ( = only this montage), so these files, if they are in Commons, may coming from other authors. Gunnex (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was initially tagged by Luca Aless as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Low resolution and low quality image Didym (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this file should be deleted because it's not that nice and it hasn't got a high resolution --Luca Aless (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: INeverCry (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was initially tagged by Luca Aless as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Crooked image Didym (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's not a problem for me if the file doesn't get deleted; I just thought that since is wasn't a good photo it would of been better to get rid of it --Luca Aless (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

out of scope, personal photo of non-notable person 67.230.145.80 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blury and not useful. We have an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Pixellated and redundant. Sodacan (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We have an SVG of the Ghanaian coat of arms. Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Too small for it to be of any illustrative use. Sodacan (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

imho authorship not clear - please see 'metadata' - Roland zh 19:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Btw, no related uploads by user (only this montage), so these files, if they are in Commons, may coming from other authors. See also Category:Sharypovo... No wiki hits for (example) this image. Gunnex (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File is from Flickr, where the copyright status is actually All Rights Reserved. Sorry about that! Patrick, oѺ 20:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File uploaded in 06.2012 by User:TY-214 ("own work"). My copyvio mark reverted by uploader with unknown reason. Originally tagged in 08.2012 with: "copyvio via (example) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=91868044&postcount=1333 (05.2012)" (and now completing): = by "Askario (29.05.2012)" = http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6308/25283843.9/0_7558a_136a5bc2_XXXL (identical res). Retransmitted on same day by "Gaskar" via http://gaskar.livejournal.com/14878.html which redirects to the identical file link above. Unclear copyright status: The uploader should explain in detail why he removed the copyvio mark. Gunnex (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

derivative of copyrighted material Werieth (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This looks like a recent Russian building. Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Photograph includes copyrightable, graphic portions of book covers, so the image is a non-free derivative. Postdlf (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyrighted by Microsoft. Contains logos which are not in public domain. Cloudbound (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Exif: © 2007 JON CRISPIN Please Credit Jon Crispin Jon Crispin PO Box 958 Amherst, MA 01004 413 256 6453 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Unclear if this or the license information in the description is valid. Didym (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This does not look like own work as stated. JuTa 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Doublon
Sammyday (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This file is another version of this photo (uploaded for archival purposes), and has higher resolution, different contrast and was uploaded by the USA National Archives and Records Administration. It has also much better metadata. Tm (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep TIFF files are non-lossy archival versions, and are not considered duplicates of the lossy JPEG versions. The NARA upload initiative often uploaded both TIFF and JPEG versions in tandem (as the TIFFs often can not be displayed by the Wiki software). These are often marked with the {{Archival version}} template which explains the situation more. If they were true duplicates we would keep the higher resolution one anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Probable copyvio. Much too complex to be PD-shape, and the source page doesn't say anything about copyright status. Carnildo (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No known portraits of John Cabot exist, so this is a fake. Talk page transcluded below. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
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.


There is no FOP in the UAE, and thence these images can't be hosted on Commons.

russavia (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for reviewing some articles on wikimedia. To be honest, I have not understood yet the problem with some of my pictures and I haven't got any further explanation on your words (I could see something on the "FOP" link you left)

I guess you mean that there are some policies related to the buildings on UAE that my images don't follow.

I can say that I took some pictures in there and I have't asked anyone on the UAE if he/she mind about using images of his country.

I didn't know I was breaking some rules (I just wanted to contribute with some of my pictures) but in that case, I hardly believe that all of the pictures of the UAE shown on Commons are following that directives

So, if it is possible, I just want to know what's the difference between my pictures and "almost every other" picture of UAE shown on wikicommons

Thanks for your help,

--KeDaO (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KeDaO: hello and thanks for your contributions. The answer to your question is COM:De minimis. If no single or prominent building is the chief subject of an image (e.g. a general skyline or cityscape view), it is thus acceptable as "de minimis".
For the FOP, unfortunately the UAE copyright law does not allow free, unrestricted commercial exploitations of images of modern buildings (Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab included), without authorization from the copyright holder of the said architectural works. Usually the copyright holders are the architects or architectural firms who created/designed the appearances of the buildings (e.g. Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa and Tony Wright for the Burj al Arab). Per COM:FOP UAE, which is supported by the current copyright law of UAE, there is no sufficient and Commons-acceptable FOP from UAE. A very restricted provision only states that free uses of images of architecture are only allowed in broadcasting programmes (no mention of free uses of photographs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to the Deletion request of Burj Khalifa March 2013.jpg.
I took the above picture and published it on Commons not being aware of the COM:FOP concept. To get a better understanding what this, and how it is applied in UAE I tried to follow the Commons discussion referred to in the deletion request message. I only to ended up in an endless discussion that seem to conclude that it is not clear that it is allowed to publish picture of architectural work (e.g. buildings) in UAE and consequently these picture should be removed since it could be a violation to the law. The problem I have is why then is not all pictures of buildings in UAE removed from Commons, why only some? Why should the picture I took be deleted while other pictures of the same building are still on Commons since many years and there is no request to remove them? In most countries (including UAE) it is clearly indicated by signs at the place or building when photography is not allowed, and consequently they cannot be published, These signs do exists is shopping malls, airports, harbors, religious places, etc but no such signs does exist for Burj Khalifa. I understand the clear distinction between taking a picture and publish the same, but wouldn't the two go hand in hand for public places? Not to mention the thousands of pictures on Internet already published of the Burj Khalifa.
I simply like to understand what pictures I take that I can publish and which I cannot, so that I do not make the same mistake again. Can someone clarify?/Losttraveller (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please understand the difference between a copyright problem (which this is) and a prohibition against taking pictures for some reason -- military installations, art inside museums, etc. Our concern is copyright. We are not concerned with other restrictions -- while the photographer may get in trouble for taking a picture in violation of the posted signs, that is not a Commons problem. The problem here is that the architect of Burj Khalifa owns the copyright. While it is perfectly legal to take a picture for your own use, such a picture may not be used in ways which would infringe on the copyright, including use on Commons. There is no real relationship between the two types of restrictions.
Second, some pictures of buildings are OK -- usually because the building is old enough so that the copyright has expired, but in some cases because the architect has given a license.
Third, please understand that Commons is not perfect. We have more than 18 million images here. It would not surprise me if 1% of those -- 180,000 -- were problems for one reason or another. So, the fact that there may be other images that should also be deleted is a problem, but it does not affect the question of whether these images should be deleted. If you see other images that are similar, please nominate them for deletion by clicking on the link in the left column of the image page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please believe me that I do understand the differences in copyrights that you describe above, likewise do I understand the rest you explain. Although I still do not have the answer to my question: when can I publish a picture of a building in UAE? Is there any way for me to know which buildings in UAE that have copyrights or when that copyright has expired? There is appr 45 pictures of Burj Khalifa in Commons, four of them has now been tagged for removal. Why only these four and not all 45? Logically if these four violates the rules, so must all 45, or...?
Please understand that I have never objected to have the pictures deleted, I just like to understand when a picture violates the rules and when not../Losttraveller (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I do not know, why the other photos in this category were not presented for deletion, but most of them (and maybe all) should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No COM:FOP in the UAE for buildings.

russavia (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


, Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyrighted building exteriors and interiors. No Freedom of Panorama in UAE.

Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa and Dubai Metro perfect timing.JPG and Tallest tower vs. the palm trees (5373615733).jpg could be de minimis. I'm not a judge, where is the border between permissibility and copyright violation? --Ras67 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted four, kept two per DM. --Krd 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copyrighted building in UAE which has no freedom of panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination --Krd 11:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! None of this buildings are free to photograph!

Ras67 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Building under copyright, no Freedom of Panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped File:Roger burj dubai promo (web).JPG to comply with the rules. ~nmaia d 14:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should be cropped more and the name should be changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Sealle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Can we have some clarification as to why these illustrations of a copyrighted building are okay for commons? I don't know how the rules apply here. The copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted, but maybe there's some exception I don't understand.

Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: as a derivative of a copyrighted deisgn, it still constitutes copyright violation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Per previous argument. I only wonder what does it mean copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted (especially this clearly as well as copyrighted architecture)? How is threshold of originality actually measured here (for music piece of arts there are some rules, e.g. number of same tones or something, although even here it is relative and some rules say it is e.g. 70% some 80%)? Is it here about pixels being mostly on the same place as in original building blueprints or something else, and again – how is this measured? If one (re)moves one pixel how is exactly new piece of art considered same as or derivative of the original one? --Obsuser (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info On this deletion request the SVG from copyrighted photos was not seen as copyright violation. --Ras67 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: that discussion involved two copyrights: the copyright on the egg itself and the copyright on a photo (derivative) of said egg. Since the egg's author died in 1920 (>70 years), those copyright restrictions have expired. If the uploader of File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg based the file on the egg itself, there is no copyright infringement. If the uploader based the file on a copyrighted photograph, that would indeed be copyvio. However, the uploader argues that they did not use any copyrighted picture in particular. In the case of the Burj Khalifa diagrams, the building's author--Adrian Smith--is still alive, which means that not even the original is in the public domain. Any derivative, even derivatives of derivatives, will have to deal with copyright restrictions until 70 years afther Smith's death. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  'Keep You can't be serious! I know photos are prohibited, but a drawing? Besides, it's not even a static drawing; it's a series of simplified floor plans translated, scaled and rotated together to give the impression of a 3D object. '⎆ 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cmglee: I'm very much open to arguments in favour of keeping since these images are in use, but I'm not sure I understand your points. Why would photographs be prohibited, but not a drawing? If a 2D image of a 3D object is copyrighted, why wouldn't an image that gives a 3D impression of a 3D object be prohibited? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill. To me, it seems obvious that a photograph is the result of an opto-electronic process: light from the building is captured by the camera and converted via electronics and computing to become an image. Sure there is artistic judgement involved, but the information in the photo is derived directly from the environment.
For my drawing, I composed hundreds of shapes which to my eye resemble the floor plans, then arranged them to make a representation of the building. (I admit that tracing a photo, for example, is a grey area, but this is not in my case.)
Look carefully at my illustration: Is the real building just a collection of planes floating in space? Do these "floors" have colours like mine?
I think that considering a non-grey-area drawing as a violation of FOP is a dangerous slippery slope; where does one draw the line? For example, if I claim that this: /\ is a drawing of Burj Khalifa, does that violate FOP?
Cheers, '⎆ 21:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, /\ is not a violation of copyright (no FoP to speak of here) but wouldn't a super accurate photo-realistic illustration of the building be infringement, even if it's not photograph based? Derivative work doesn't need to be derived directly from the environment. Your illustrations are a floor-by-floor recreation of the buildings. They are far more detailed than, say, me sketching the building on a napkin with pencil. There may be gray area about some illustrations, but I don't see your illustrations as gray area. I like them a lot, they are clearly useful, and if there's a way we can keep them, I'm all for it but we need a clear rationale. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be uploaded locally to Wikipedias as fair use in order to represent a building structure (for those Wikipedias that disabled local uploading entirely, I don't know). --Obsuser (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill and Obsuser. Can someone tell me how the image can be modified to be acceptable? For example, is it OK if the dimetric view of the tower on the left was removed? Also, can the article have a prominent comment so that editors needn't spend days of work just to see their effort deleted? Cheers, '⎆ 23:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Lastly, can someone update Commons:Freedom_of_panorama to make it clear that drawings are treated similarly to photographs? '⎆ 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted per above: this is clearly a reproduction of the architectural work. Guanaco (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nomination --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No freedom of panorama in the UAE

Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

no FoP in the UAE

Saqib (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted - per nomination - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how and why you can on the same day upload a number of pictures of the skyline of Dubai, including also the Burj Khalifa, and request deletion for similar uploads – what is your endgame? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I believe there is no copyright to these public images in the UAE .Category:Burj Khalifa. Is it possible to give us one reason to delete these images which are public photos and there is nothing wrong with posting them here!?.Usamasaad 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no endgame, it seems to be consensus that skyline photo of a specific subject are free due to de minimis. A full frame depiction of a building in UAE can not be hosted on Commons due to the lack of panorama of freedom. Every image must be able to use commercially and this is here not the case. --Ras67 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - per nomination. Kept only File:Fog on Burj Khalifah.Dubai. - panoramio.jpg and File:برج خليفة في دبي2.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Burj Khalifa was designed by Adrian Smith.

Ras67 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom. It is not de minimis if what is being photographed is the main subject of the photograph. The entry way would still be part of the copyright and we cannot keep any of these. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No FOP in UAE

(Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Too little carefulness in the files' selection. Many of them were already nominated in a deletion request and were kept. One file has now two deletion requests! A skyline should be free, but only the broad ones.
 Keep for all old nominated and kept files (no new reasons were given).
 Keep for broad skyline photos (almost the whole city).
 Delete What is with CollageDubai.jpg? Was the DR properly closed? IMHO also the new one is not correct, a (cropped out) single part image of the Burj Al Arab and of two other buildings can't be assessed as de minimis!
 Delete for photos of the Burj with fountains etc. and all others. --Ras67 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: As per Themightyquill, there are various copyrighted buildings in the picture and having all of them as DM doesn't eliminate the copyvio infringement. If you're talking in the POV that Burj Khalifa is the main DR reason, I've mentioned above that "Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers." (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and agree with you, but where is the border? Strictly speaking we have to delete all with copyrighted objects in the UAE. This can not be it. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: I would say that only having a single small enough copyrighted building as DM would be ok. For example, File:Burj Khalifa @ Yellow Boats Tour @ Dubai (15876740342).jpg might probably the threshold of DM as the design of the building is "too small" in the picture to be seen. I wonder why File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg was kept with the reason of "Panoramic view of the city" per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa (as File:Burj Khalifa 005.JPG in the DR) when FOP applies to all buildings and not BK only. However, this is only my opinion and this is the problem about DM, there is no benchmark. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, it's a difficult matter with blurred borders, the closing admin has to decide it. --Ras67 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble accepting that the burj khalifa is really de minimis in an image titled "Burj Khalifa" and in the category Category:Burj Khalifa. If it's an image of the skyline of Dubai, it should be renamed as such and it should not be in this category. It should not be used to illustrate articles on the Burj Khalifa. De Minimis is an exception, not a loophole. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, but some are  kept. I commented some files. Taivo (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Derived work from copyrighted photos/buildings/designs what we cannot host here! We need the permission of the actual creators for a free licencing of their work.

Ras67 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy delete as derivative work copyvios. No permissions or OTRS authorizations from model creators, images uploaded by a problematic user (who has uploaded dozens of DW/no FOP violations, as seen in their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To the 21st one and eternal further, no freedom of panorama in UAE! Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights? It seems to me, that the rest of the world is not interested in this case. IMHO the skylines are copyrighted too.

@JWilz12345: If so, we can change this file name and keep this file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And we can also undelete deleted file and rename deleted file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The illuminated background is an essential part of the photos and not a casual element. The whole background consists of copyrighted skyscrapers. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment I think main object in this image is the car. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I read this page carefully. In this page, I found this sentence. "Cityscape, skyline, or vista photos may be acceptable if no single building is the primary subject." It means that both cityscape photos and skyline photos are allowed. And this page contains outdated content. For example, Atomium in Belgium is allowed now because Belgium has freedom of panorama now, but this page explains that Atomium is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: slashed my vdel input. While the page is outdated for Atomium, it is still relevant for Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab, as long as there is no acceptable FOP from UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ras67 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Keep Already in past discussions, it has been concluded that some images were kept covered by DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel:  Comment In my opinion, some of other files you didn't marked maybe to be kept. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: You may also mark those you think can be kept. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections (except those given keep reasons by A1Cafel or Ox1997cow).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel and Jeff G.: I marked whether delete or keep. I will respectfully accept any objection. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the skylines are not {{Deminimis}}. Every building in these images is copyrighted, it's not in the "sense" of the law to "stack" copyrighted objects and so make them free. The "deminimised" objects have to be "nonessential" and "casual" elements, what is not the case in the skyline photographs. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment Already in past discussion, it has been concluded that the skylines are DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Lack of freedom of panorama does not mean that we cannot create categories of copyrighted buildings or sculptures. So, why does categories of copyrighted games exist? (Such as Category:StarCraft, Category:Overwatch, Category:Call of Duty, etc...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the skyline photo incidentally contains copyrighted buildings, these photos are allowed under de minimis. Categories of buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama exist for this kind of situation. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: see Category:Sólfar (a copyrighted sculpture in Iceland, with all files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sólfar). See also Category:SM City San Pedro. For buildings, they can go under Category:Buildings in Dubai or Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. This category has been abused IMO, and it seems new uploaders ignore warnings on top. Also if the category needs to be nuked, this should be locked until the year the building falls PD or UAE changes their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: That's an extreme case. When uploading to the category of copyrighted things, there is no problem if we follow the warning and upload. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: By the way, why are you taking the extreme case and giving it as an example? In the previous deletion discussion, you used that only examples of misuse of NoFoP templates were taken as examples, and you claimed that all NoFoP templates should be changed with something like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: the simple answer is that the {{NoUploads}} are, in my opinion, ineffective. I doubt most uploaders will understand what the template means in relation to copyrighted FOP-reliant works: works like buildings, sculptures, statues, monuments, memorials, and public murals/frescoes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: My opinion is different. The reason is that many users don't know that freedom of panorama varies by country. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974:  Oppose Some images were kept due to DM before. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burj Khalifa should be a trivial landmark (i.e. should not be at the centre of an image) per COM:DM, but it is too prominent in most of the listed images. Apologies for !voting all listed images to delete without seeing them individually. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I and A1Cafel have already marked "deleted" and "kept" on images that are likely to be deleted and images that are likely to be kept. Also, already in the previous deletion discussion, it was concluded that the skyline image is DM as the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some skyline images are under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa-related.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To end all this mess because of limited exception (broadcasting programs only) in UAE copyright law, are there any attempts by Wikipedians in UAE and Arab Wikipedians to have FOP introduced in the desert kingdom? At the very least, FOP for architecture only (similar to US and Russian exceptions)? @A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, Ras67, Botev, Jeff G., and Soumya-8974: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I'm sorry, but I've never heard of such a thing. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights" note that I do not care about Adrian Smith's right, I do not care about UAE law. If I nominate things for deletion I do it to protect users of Commons. This law is unjust, though if for some reason I would have influence on UAE I would start from far worse laws being present there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for this nomination: keep everything, nominate actually problematic ones for a proper review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as indiscriminate. Cut out any skyline pictures, they are clearly de minimis. Individually nominate the rest. We aren’t here to “right great wrongs” by protecting the copyright of an architect who has low enough ethical standards to work in a country where being gay is illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: followed remarks of @Ox1997cow and A1Cafel: and many thanks for your efforts. In some case followed arguments of other users. General skylines kept according consensus. Thanks all for your efforts. --Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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.

The architecture is copyrighted e.g. by Adrian Smith, see COM:TOYS!


Ras67 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Delete They are clearly {{Copyvio}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete derivative work copyright violation: appears to be toys or small-scale models. May also fulfill User:Elcobbola/Models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per COM:TOYS--A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, per nomination and discussion. Elly (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, per COM:FOP UAE. The Burj Khalifa is still copyrighted. Also derivatives (such as lego models) are copyrighted. Reason: the building was completed in 2008.

This image is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elly (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree not to delete File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg, because the tower is blackened and details cannot be seen. Elly (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all but File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all except File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Surely most/all those other buildings are subject to copyright as well. Either all buildings in this image (including Burj Khalifa) de minimis or all are subject to copyright restrictions, no? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Already the decision has been made that the single buildings might be copyrighted but the whole panorama is not. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: That was my understanding as well - so I didn't see the need to black out the tower in that image. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Dubai including the Burj Khalifa would be useful? -- 06:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we can make a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Seoul including Lotte World Tower. (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, too.) Ox1997cow (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow and Themightyquill: impractical, and can lead to abuse. The best approach is that all skyline inages must be categorized under Category:Skylines in Dubai and similar categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I don't think it's impractical, but I suspect you're right about leading to abuse. Just a thought - I'm not determined. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and Themightyquill: However, existing building name categories(For example, Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, etc.) should be kept. It is intended to be used in a photo of the skyline that contains the building. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked {{vk}} on images that can obviously applied de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I have signed your markings for you. Please sign such markings yourself in the future.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Oh, that's my mistake. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Has anyone contacted Adrian Smith to request permission? If so, then I'm assuming he said no? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I've not misheard, Adrian Smith is currently in a jail in Saudi Arabia. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974 and Ixfd64: for a more eternal or longterm approach, has anyone including Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in UAE have taken steps to introduce FOP there, at least "for buildings only" (yellow countries)? I expect dozens of more copyvio images to be uploaded here, including: this one. I'm not sure if people aren't aware of no FOP there or just intentionally "testing our no-FOP policy on UAE". I would also want to suggest filtering out exactly the words "Burj Khalifa" so that new users will no longer be able to upload images either containing the said words in their file names or in their file descriptions, at least temporarily (while UAE has no FOP for photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Excessive file name restrictions are bad. Suppose someone uploaded a file name of the Dubai Skyline with Burj Khalifa as "Remote view of Burj Khalifa". Skyline photos with Burj Khalifa are allowed even if there is no freedom of panorama in UAE, as last deletion discussion concluded that they were OK. If you ban the use of "Burj Khalifa" in file names, we won't be able to upload acceptable skyline or cityscape photos. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And many people do not know freedom of panorama. I also mistakenly thought that the copyright of a building or sculpture photo belonged to the person who took it, until I saw numerous photos of the building or sculpture deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: no, de minimis photos can still be uploaded, thru titles like "Dubai skyline 20211103.JPG", "Skyline of Dubai, UAE as seen from the Marina in 2019.jpg." If images bearing such file names continue to be uploaded, the location filled with millions of deleted files from late-2006 may become "crowded" in the very distant future. Besides files do not get "deleted" in real life, but rather all "deleted" files are still there, just hidden from non-admins (as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on his reply here). See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Image undeletion on the mechanism of files deleted on Wikipedia (which also applies to all Wiki sites). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: You're thinking too extreme. A lot of users will use the copyrighted building name in the file name, but can we ban the copyrighted building name in the file name? And did you think about typos? (For example, "Bur Kalifa", "Buri Khaljfa", etc.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I've known you're an extreme claimant since you had the deletion discussion related NoFoP templates. Even in that discussion, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace. Even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I look on longterm solutions and not "band-aid" solutions. Thus it is best to filter out such names. Actually Commons has already did a version of what you call very extreme approach: indefinite protection of file names that is comonly misused. Example: File:Burj Khalifa.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That approach of locking the file name prompted me to suggest such. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Keep that in mind. Such long-term solutions can hurt many users. Even though it is forbidden to use only "Burj Khalifa" in a file name, I know that using a file name containing "Burj Khalifa" is difficult to ban. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: and also take note of COM:CARES. The copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I couldn't find anything about Adrian Smith being incarcerated. His article on the English Wikipedia doesn't say anything either. Could you provide a source? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I have probably misheard a piece of news related to the still-unfinished Jeddah Tower, also designed by Adrian Smith. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of course I know the copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. Anyway, even though I agree to ban file name containing only "Burj Khalifa", I cannot accept your extreme argument of banning file names containing "Burj Khalifa". Ox1997cow (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, how about using the edit filter to just warn the user if they try to upload a picture containing the name? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: It's not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa Interpretation Centre.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep skyline images. De minimis use of the Burj Khalifa, there’s a precedent for this. The freedom of panorama page of English Wikipedia literally shows a skyline in a non-FOP country. I struggle to see why the images that just show the base aren’t de minimis but that’s not my expertise. The blacked-out version is artistically interesting but a ridiculous solution to a nonexistent problem (buildings are not more copyrighted because they’re famous and impossible not to notice in a generic panorama!) Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept General DR like this one is clearly not helpful. Yann (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The two versions of this image were a) claimed to have an OTRS license or b) to be taken by some CIC officer, making them PD-USGov. As it turned out on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, the OTRS ticket is not applicable, and even if one version was taken from CIC files, the claim that a CIC officer took the photo is both unproven and unlikely - why (and where, and when) would a German resistance member that was executed in 1942 have been photographed by the CIC?

It is obvious that the picture is from 1942 or earlier, but that does not make it automatically "Anonymous-EU" as it is tagged at the moment. It is likely a picture originating in Germany, and for German works before 1995, it is not enough that you or we do not know the author to make it truly anonymous in a legal sense. You would essentially have to prove that the author's name was never made public anywhere, not in a newspaper article, not in a public lecture, etc. One just cannot prove that, so we cannot declare it an anonymous work. We also cannot assume that the author is dead for at least 70 years, the image is too recent for that. So it should be deleted per the precautionary principle.

Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Basdog22 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

software spam, no notabilty

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Draubb (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Highly unlikely authorship claims based on the nature of the photos, their low resolution, the lack of metadata, and the uploader's history of falsely claiming to be the author of works created by other people, including Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830) and Nader Daoud/World Economic Forum.

LX (talk, contribs) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gart105 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

doubt own work.

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete - gallery-sized images, weird names, only contributions by uploader, no meta-information. I'm quite sure they are not uploaders own works. --heb [T C E] 09:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Geeestepa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused software screenshots of questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Helpernot (talk · contribs)

[edit]

just two more rather low quality penis pics (eps. File:Uncircumcised penis9999.jpg).

Isderion (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by User:Túrelio --Isderion (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Nikita Kuzin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Robotfog (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use falls outside project scope.

Rrburke (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by 青锦象成长中心 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

article in jpg format not usable. looks like c&p anyway.

Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

NBA photos by Danny Bollinger

[edit]

See ongoing village pump discussion as well as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jannero Pargo in 2012.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rodrigue Beaubois layup over Kevin Seraphin.jpg in which similar photos taken by Danny Bollinger uploaded to his own flickr account with CC-BY licenses were deleted because the NBA rather than Bollinger was the copyright holder, ruled the deleting admin. --Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It seems pretty clear from the image descriptions - these were photos taken for NBAE, and are licensed for sale through Getty Images (and we've deleted photos from this Flickr account before for the same reason). There seems to be some confusion, since Getty Images also licenses photos that are original uploads to Flickr, but the photos listed are, and should be treated as, news agency photos. This is essentially unintentional, non-malicious Flickrwashing. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Crowdcreated reuse of public domain art on fence around Metro building site

[edit]

The uploader states that what the photos are depicting is a [c]rowdcreated reuse of public domain art, however public domain does not have any share alike implications and freedom of panorama in Denmark only permits photographs of buildings. --heb [T C E] 08:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to hear an explanation why "public domain does not have any share alike implications", I will just re-license the images for now. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the individual components of the depicted work may be public domain, there is nothing in the "terms" of public domain that states that any reuse of public domain elements has to be public domain. If I do a collage of 50 public domain photos I can easily and rightfully claim copyright of that collage. It's the same situation here. Thus the photos depict a work that may - or may not - be copyrighted. The fact that it is crowcreated doesn't change anything - it merely means that there are multiple authors.
Re-licensing the photos won't change anything, as it is a question of copyright on the work on the fence. --heb [T C E] 06:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. The person at SMK responsible for ULK (Unges Laboratorier for Kunst, the artist group behind the project) will be back at the museum on July 22nd. I hope he takes my advice and decides on CC0. I'll let you know what he says. --Palnatoke (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: FOP in Denmark does not apply to artwork FASTILY 08:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is now a bigger version at File:Maerschalck map of New York City.jpg. Hamblin (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 08:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No OTRS. Copyright violation. 82.120.39.145 13:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the cause why this picture has to be removed. There is no copyright violation since I'm the author of the artwork and I hereby authorize its publication. -Agustín Reche-

Please send a confirmation of the CC0 license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an email address that shows that you really are Agustín Reche; otherwise, anybody could claim to be. See COM:OTRS for details. darkweasel94 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

According to the metadata, the image is based on File:Донской козакъ 1821 года.jpeg. There is no evidence that the original image of a random, generic cossack depicts A. N. Jakov. In my opinion this image is presenting false the facts that have been made up by the uploader. On that note, I'd like to see a blazon for File:COA Jakoff Family.jpg which I can't seem to find in the Armorial Rietstap. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that according to the Almanach de Gotha, the earliest Russian countship was bestowed in 1706 to one count Sheremetev, so it makes me wonder how Jakov would've been a count in the 16th century. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See COM:ART#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book and COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Unlicensed photo of the stone. Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stefan4. This photo of Absalon's gravestone was taken by myself in Sorø Klosterkirke (behind the altar). The licence is probably wrong, and I am sorry about that. Kind regards, Orf3us (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and kept: Uploader stated {{Own}}, nominator assumed it was taken from the internet. The gravestone is clearly over 100 years old, the photograph is stated as the uploader's own work. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

П-44Т is a copyrighted architectural project. PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Insufficient originality. Not a work by an architect per definitionem is protectable, but an architectural work. Whoever developed them, simplest Soviet-style apartment blocks aren't (and I don't mean luxury high-rises like this one). --A.Savin 13:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Insufficient originality, does not exceed threshold of originality FASTILY 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hoax image by the uploader. This is evidently based on either File:Russian boyar from XVII century.JPG or its original image. The depicted rider is the generic image of a Russian nobleman from the 17th century while A.N. Jakov allegedly lived until 1599. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that according to the Almanach de Gotha, the earliest Russian countship was bestowed in 1706 to one count Sheremetev, so it makes me wonder how Jakov would've been a count in the 16th century. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The original uploader on de.wiki (since banned) claimed that this is a US Department of Defense photo, but the source site is not a DoD site. No evidence that this is actually free. – Quadell (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Questionable Provenance of image. – Quadell (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1st of all I can approve that they referred back then to the defenselink.mil webpage. Mark was banned cause of sockpuppets which where supporting each other and not cause of copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the http://le.cos.free.fr/delta%20force.htm website used to claim that this image came from the US DoD? – Quadell (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070227164659/http://le.cos.free.fr/delta%20force.htm says "© www.defenselink.mil". --Stefan4 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am the photographer of this image. I gave permission under a CC license for its use in a Wall Street Journal article in connection with the closing of the Duke Display Gardens but never for it to be used on Wikimedia, Wikipedia or any of its related sites in other languages. I regret requesting its removal but because it was uploaded at full resolution it has been misappropriated by sites where it's offered as downloadable wallpaper without attribution or permission. That was never my intention. Thank you. The image can be seen on my website - http://viviansville.com/p231456297/h59b9de8c#h59b9de8c V720726 (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Free licenses are irrevocable. File is high-quality and in use. The CC license you gave was for everyone, not just WSJ. Anyways, removing it from Commons wouldn't stop the websites you're referring to, and it sounds like the image has already been spread around quite a bit, so taking it off Commons would be a useless exercise. INeverCry (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per INC. If you didn't want others to use the file, you shouldn't have licensed it with a CC license in the first place. FASTILY 08:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mauro David died on 6 January 2007, more than a month before User:Mauro David uploaded this image. Death date confirmed by [5]. Unless that user represents his heirs, they are not entitled to release the work under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite bad that an image without permission was candidated first as featured picture and then as picture of the year. Anyway, it seems that the image was copied from here http://www.documentabout.it/ING/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.jpg (this is the page of the site), as the resolution of the two images is the same: 1988x1412. It's true that the author died before the image was uploaded, so it's unlikely that he wanted his painting to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, no OTRS permission means deletion, even if the image is candidated as POTY 2010. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: the users who voted for that image on POTY should be given a second chance to vote. I think that if the image will be deleted, all the users who voted for it should receive a message to inform them that they can vote for another picture. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is important to make sure users have a chance to vote for another image, this issue should probably be expedited. Else it could be deleted with just hours to go before the voting ends, leaving people without time or notice to submit a new vote. At any rate, Theo10011 told me on IRC that he had notified the POTY committee of the issue, so the matter is in their hands. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when I visit http://www.documentabout.it/RID/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm, Google Chrome warns me that it's a site which hosts malware. I would prefer to find a more reputable source. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Saibo's view here that the site itself is probably not malicious, so I don't believe this is relevant to the licensing status of the image. --Avenue (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make this clear: I do suggest NOT to VISIT the source page - it could infect your computer. I just mean that it is probably not the site owner's intention to host malware. Btw: did you want to link this section --Saibo (Δ) 04:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the link to the section is more informative than the diff I gave. --Avenue (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - be careful with this link, KIS2011 warned me: "The requested object at the URL: http://www.documentabout.it/ing/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm Threat detected: object is infected by HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer". RedAndr (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This archived copy of the linked page scans as clean of malware.[6] I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it still has the same warning. RedAndr (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just sent e-mail with OTRS permission request (in english only, i do not speak italian) to the mail on www.maurodavid.com site. --Jklamo (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up in Italian.--Chaser (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My email bounced.--Chaser (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My as well. --Jklamo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail address on the domain registration is info@maurodavid.com. Can we try that address? I don't normally do OTRS requests, so I'd prefer that someone with more experience make the contact. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely clear, from what I can see, but I think so. The documentabout.it site looks very similar to maurodavid.com at first glance, but also hosts larger images than any I've found on the latter site. Access to high resolution images of his many artworks seems suggestive but not conclusive. (The main page at maurodavid.com doesn't seem to have changed much since archive.org first crawled it in early 2004.[7]) According to whois, the maurodavid.com site was registered with Tucows Inc by "David Mauro" from Napoli, with the whois record created on 19 Oct 2001.[8] The documentabout.it site was registered by "David Armando" from Napoli on 9 Sep 2003.[9] The first four edits to this image page here, all on 25 Feb 2007, were by User:Mauro David and User:Armando David. While I don't see a perfect paper trail here, I'd be surprised if the documentabout.it site wasn't legit. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's strongly possible that the image was uploaded by the artist's heirs, but "I'd be surprised if it wasn't legit" isn't the standard of proof required on Commons as I understand it. Commons:Permission seems to be very clear on this point: when a user declares a free license for a work that they did not make, OTRS clearance is required. In this case, we know with near-certainty that the author did not upload this image, so explicit permission is necessary. I really don't see any wiggle room on this front. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: documentabout.it / seems to be image-hosting better-quality pics of mauro's works, as stated above. http://www.documentabout.it/
it is also worth noting that (as far as i could tell from a quick, non-comprehensive, check) the ONLY painting-photo @ documentabout.it which is cc licensed, is the one under discussion here. it is also in-use @ several wikips, mostly as an example of "hyperrealism"; & there was apparently an article abt the artist @ wikip/eng (not sure abt other wikips), which was deleted, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mauro i don't have the admin access to check it, but i assume it's abt the same person; the name order "david mauro" is the same as on the artist's biopage here: http://www.maurodavid.com/Note_biografiche.htm
having read all the artist's site's info, via google translate, it appears that the website's author worked closely with the artist (& his family) to create that site. it seems pretty clear that at some point they (with either the artist, or the artist's family/estate) decided to create a presence for mauro @ wikip as well. given the close association of the site creator with the painter (not to mention the fact that the site is still being hosted/maintained 4 years after the artist's death!) i would expect the image rights to be "in order"
Lx 121 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's a reasonable conclusion to draw from what we can see, but again, my understanding of Commons permission requirements is that we require a higher degree of certainty than "it looks like the image was probably uploaded by the artist's heirs or at least somebody who worked closely with him." Tim Pierce (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, but the cc-licensing of the image-file @ the source image hosting site (which is pretty clearly associated with the artist's official site), and ONLY that one image, which was to be used @ wikip, is the CLINCHER Lx 121 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "the clincher" of anything except the knowledge that someone who probably worked with Mauro David at one time put his images up there under a CC license. Commons:Permission has a good example of how this can go wrong. I don't doubt that there's a strong likelihood that the upload is legitimate, but "the clincher" here is still OTRS confirmation. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, "the clincher" here is the explicit CC-BY license on an almost certainly official website. We accept files from Flickr and from pseudonymous Commons users (me included) with much less certainty about copyright ownership, and we have a better paper trail for this image than for the vast majority of our images. This is nothing like the example on Commons:Permission, and OTRS confirmation is unnecessary here. The only things we really need to change are the source link and the {{Self}} component of the license tag on the image description page. I'll do that now. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should also have been a CC-BY-2.5 license tag, not CC-BY-SA. Now fixed. --Avenue (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that documentabout.it is an "almost certainly official website." I don't agree, and I don't think Commons licensing procedure permits making that assumption. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I'm assuming anything about the website. I have concluded, based on various facts detailed above, that the image's source page is almost certainly part of an official website established in conjunction with the painter and that the license shown on the source page is most likely valid. These facts include the similarity of the two sites, the nature of their content, the domain registrants' shared surname, and the dates of their registrations (years before the image was uploaded here). If you have considered all of these facts and still disagree with my conclusion, so be it. Let's move on to policy.
As far as I can see, the only (proposed) policy page you've mentioned is Commons:Permission, and nothing there applies to an image that is available under a free license according to its source webpage. The most applicable policy I'm aware of is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which says that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted". I appreciate that the evidence we have for the validity of the license (and hence the freedom of this file) isn't absolutely conclusive, but I wouldn't describe any remaining doubts as significant. --Avenue (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: STRONG KEEP! image appears to have been provided by the artist's website creator (evident if one reads through the artist's website info) who would reasonably be expected to have the rights to do so. the image is not simply a "rip" from the site; filesize is significantly larger. we should probably try & pursue an otrs on this, but the default assumption is that the upload was authorized. Lx 121 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i stand corrected abt the file source, BUT the file appears to be cc licensed see here: [[10]] therefore KEEP & restore to the r2 poty vote asap! Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no reason to believe the artist's website creator has the right to license to work. Typically, an artist would license the website creator to display the works, not assign copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
technical point, not carping, but just to clarify; no one is talking about "assigning copyright". a cc-license IS just a license. Lx 121 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep What I've found out about the site displaying the CC license (see my response to 99of9 above) strongly suggests to me that it's legitimate. In the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, I think we should keep the image. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep tentatively, I think. We do not require OTRS if the file is licensed at its source, under the rationale that the person with access to first publish it should be the same one with the ability to license it. There appears to be no other source for the high-resolution version than that documentabout.it site, so that would appear to be the original source, and it is plainly licensed there. The server date for the image is May 21, 2006, predating the upload here -- so, the local upload could not be trusted, but the license on the source page on the other hand is enough. If there is another, earlier source for the high-resolution image (without a licensing statement) then things would change, but given the current info it seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so if we tentatively assume that this is a keep, then that leaves the question:
WHAT ABOUT POTY2011?
the images was a poty finalist & R2 voting is (still) underway, this image was disqualified over the licensing/rights issue; now if we've agreed that it's legit, then what about: a) returning it to the competition? & b) how to deal with the harm done, in removing it from the voting list for MOST of the R2 scheduled polling time?
Lx 121 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late to simply restore it to the competition, at least if you are concerned with it having a fair chance. Most of the votes were received in the first few days, especially 30 and 31 May. Personally I think people were too quick to remove it from the competition, but there's no point carping about that now. Short of restarting the final round of POTY voting (which seems excessive), I think the only way for POTY to be fair to this image is to let it be entered into next year's competition (assuming there will be one next year). Perhaps it should even be entered directly into the second round. This is probably not the right forum to discuss this, though. --Avenue (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep there is good reason to believe that the CC license holds. --torusJKL (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The source site has had the CC license for a long time; also, the website says, (translated by Google) "Urged by friends and relatives, this site has been created, despite some initial reluctance and suspicion, with the active collaboration of the artist who personally oversaw the photos, the choice of his favorite paintings and simple setup General." It seems he approved all this before he died. fetchcomms 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No OTRS. Copyright violation. 82.120.39.145 13:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the previous deletion request above? The reason we think it's ok is that it was clearly marked with a free license on the (official looking) source site. --99of9 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently free per source site. -FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wrong copyright option selected Benjamin Wiens (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Too simple for the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: too simple for copyright FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unused duplicate of File:Klamath Falls, Oregon 1909 Panoramic photographs Library of Congress Digital ID pan 6a08746r.jpg, which has the correct author and copyright information. ALH (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this version had a watermark, so I wasn't sure if it qualified as a duplicate. ALH (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} imho. BrightRaven (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The uploader informed me on my talk page that he has the authorization of the museum. I told him to send an email to OTRS. BrightRaven (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Freedom of panorama in Denmark only permits photographs of buildings. Main in this photo is (legal) graffiti and thus derivative with no clear indication of permitted reuse. heb [T C E] 08:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked the artist for permission, hoping that she will reply soon. --Palnatoke (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: If the artist responds, the response should be forwarded to COM:OTRS. An OTRS member will restore the file if everything is ok FASTILY 08:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Looks like copyrighted П-44Т project. PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The «П-44Т» building project comes from Московский научно-исследовательский и проектный институт типологии и экспериментального проектирования (www.mniitep.ru). It was created by architects Юрий Пантелеймонович Григорьев, Александр Валентинович Надысев, Т. Принтц, А. П. Цыганкова. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Insufficient originality. Not a work by an architect per definitionem is protectable, but an architectural work. Whoever developed them, simplest Soviet-style apartment blocks aren't (and I don't mean luxury high-rises like this one). --A.Savin 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Insufficient originality, does not exceed threshold of originality FASTILY 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow, Rubtsovskaya 4 Aug 2009 02.JPG

No evidence that these apartment block are below the "threshold of originality". There is even no evidence that such a threshold exists by apartment blocks in Russia. In the lack of evidence about such a threshold, we should consider all architecture copyrightable. Architecture is, by definition, creative and original by the very reason of its complexity. Eleassar (t/p) 10:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in common sense; everyone has his own. You should provide appropriate evidence that there is a "threshold of originality" and that these blocks fall below it. See also [11]. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Fastily and others. Yann (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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.

out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please delete this Image because it is no longer in use on wikipedia. (UTC)


Deleted: FASTILY 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

П-44Т is a copyrighted architectural project. PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Insufficient originality. Not a work by an architect per definitionem is protectable, but an architectural work. Whoever developed them, simplest Soviet-style apartment blocks aren't (and I don't mean luxury high-rises like this one). --A.Savin 13:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Insufficient originality, does not exceed threshold of originality FASTILY 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Wiki erudito (talk · contribs)

[edit]

It says that these Libyan banknotes were made by the person who uploaded them to English Wikipedia. This seems dubious. There is no entry for Libya at COM:CUR and COM:CRT suggests that they are copyrighted for 30 years since publication.

Stefan4 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read here that this files are in the public domain, because they are photos of Libyan currency notes and they seem not to violate the Libyan Copyright Law No. 7 of 1984--80.29.15.211 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COM:CRT#Libya links to Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968 (1968). If the current law is called "Law No. 7 of 1984", then this suggests that COM:CRT#Libya is heavily outdated and that anything stated there may be wrong. "Law No. 7 of 1984" appears to be the name of the law and not a specific section of it, so we would need to find which section of the law the uploader of File:Libya - half a dinar 2.jpg refers to and determine whether the claim is correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at COM:VPC#Libya. In short, it seems that COM:CRT#Libya is all wrong and that we have no way to tell if a work is protected by copyright in Libya or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this link, the 1984 law was based on the 1968 law (which is the only one on wipolex unfortunately). It also states that the terms are 50pma, so at least that was increased by the 1984 law. This ebook has much the same info, and prints out a lot of the 1968 law, but unsure if it contains any of the 1984 law (it's just a preview book, not free). Presumably most of the stuff from 1968 would still apply, but it'd be best to know the details of what changed. I can't find any concrete info beyond the increase to 50pma. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There must have been other changes too. COM:CRT#Libya suggests that the 1968 law is completely incompatible with the Berne Convention which Libya joined in the 1970s. No idea if there were other changes apart from extending copyright protection to foreign works and extending the copyright term, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is completely incompatible... the terms need to be lengthened, that's all. Sounds like there was a reciprocity thing for foreign authors, which automatically becomes valid for other Berne members once Libya joined the Berne Convention. But it would be good to see if the 1984 law was basically an amendment which altered a few sections, or if it was a re-issue of the entire copyright law where they took the basic ideas from the earlier law but reworded extensively. 159.140.254.10 00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 08:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Some artists, for instance Miss-tic, already asked that pictures of her work should be removed from Commons ( http://jastrow.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/le-droit-dauteur-a-la-rue/ in French ). Thus, this templace is based on false assumption and should be removed. Léna (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. This template merely restates the policy at Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti. If you want to change the policy the discussion about it should be at Commons talk:Image casebook, where all previous discussions about it have occurred, not here. I would welcome you doing so, considering I am myself opposed to the present policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It seems to me that this template states: "every illagal graffiti is uploadable on Commons", that is untrue. Every image should be valuated case by case with COM:DW, that actually is the referring policy in these cases: Commons:Image casebook is not a policy, but an help page, and no previous discussions are needed for modify it.--Trixt (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is shooting the messenger. We do have graffiti on Commons. Whether or not we should remove it is not connected to this template. (Nor is it connected to whether the vandals have asked that pictures of their work be removed.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Unless practice and the Image Casebook are changed. So long as we are hosting content that may put reusers in legal jeopardy, we have a duty to advise them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This restates and links to current policy. Its use will alert editors to the graffiti policy, which should be read before uploading their own photos of graffiti. -- Trevj (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Needed due to the current graffiti policy. If you want to change the graffiti policy, this is not the right place to do that. If graffiti made by Magica De Spell or certain other artists can't be kept here, a reformulation of a portion of the template text may be needed, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (Weak Keepsee below) for as long as the Commons policy allows graffiti, in general cases, to be kept. Perhaps the wording of the template should be changed to make it clearer that a graffiti author may start an image deletion request and have a questionable image's copyright/Commons status determined on the merits. But, as far as I know, this template is the only one that documents this kind of Commons licensing status, and cannot easily be merged into any other type of Commons license-status template. --Closeapple (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Despite my statement that this should be kept: The template, as currently worded, makes the false statement that "Standing policy at Wikimedia Commons accepts these images". Commons:Image casebook is not Commons policy; it is a help file about typical behavior. I also notice that Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti doesn't actually cite any examples — this seems very odd, since it appears to violate Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which is official policy — on Commons, we usually don't accept arguments like "the artist won't enforce his copyright because it will cause trouble for him too". I don't know the Commons policy about saying something is Commons policy; but on English Wikipedia, it's considered misleading (or possibly dishonest) to say something is Wikipedia "policy" when the statement does not actually have the official policy header on it. At the least, he template definitely need to be reworded. Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti should probably be improved also. (And if it turns out the whole thing is unsupportable, then we need to fix that!) --Closeapple (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Changing my original "keep" to "weak keep" and striking out "policy", for the reasons discussed in my comment above. The more I keep seeing graffiti deletion discussions using the word "policy" to describe Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti the more uncomfortable I become. I've seen someone throwing around the phrase "res nullius" in discussions also — ask the Australians how that ends up once someone actually pays attention. I think someone needs to go back through the edit history for Commons:Image casebook and see where this whole graffiti exemption claim came from. --Closeapple (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly invite you to revise the template (the word "policy" was chosen for brevity rather than accuracy). Regardless of how the section was introduced, there have been numerous discussions on Commons talk:Image casebook supporting the current wording, which make me believe it would not be trivial to change this standing practice. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Tiptoety talk 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I stumbled across this template today and my first thought was "wtf". The whole things reads like "ahmm, yeah, we know what we are doing is wrong but we are doing it anyway". Imho clearly violates the licencing policy as commons is expected to host files that are free, not presumably free.

The justification for this template is rather weak. Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti states, "that some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." Ahm, is this the leading commentary opinion or is it just the beliefs of some? And even if that was true it would still violate COM:PRP.

Another problem with this template is that you often wouldn't even know if the graffiti is "illegal". Sometimes even if a graffiti is sprayed without consent the owner are ok with it (see example). Also in some cases graffitis are signatured ("tag") and proof of ownership may not be as hard as it seems (e.g. same style; witness as spraying may be done in groups).

This DR includes a proposed change of Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti. If the DR is successful Category:Non-free graffiti (currently 336 images) should be reviewed. Maybe some pictures can be kept with with another rational (maybe fop for 2d works), the rest should be deleted.

A few words regarding the last deletion debate: Most people thought as long Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti remains this template should remain as well (though quite a few people were not really comfortable with Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti). That's why this DR also includes a change of this help-page. I left a comment at the talk page to invite interested people to this discussion, but there's no reason not to discuss the matter here. Isderion (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep for the same reasons we kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington. The statue in the USA is a copy of an illegal statue in China. If we delete images of illegal graffiti then all the ones of this copyvio statue would need to go as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete obvious violation of COM:PRP. darkweasel94 00:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We should be specific about what the legal issue is here. The issue is not about artists that have a legal copyright but would attract trouble for themselves if they tried to enforce it; it's already clear that Commons considers those works copyrighted under COM:PRP. The main issue is that, in some jurisdictions, a person may be prohibited from pursuing any right that derives from breaking the law. In other words, when it comes to the full effect of the law, there may not be any effective copyright for illegal works. However, even in those situations, this would have a few holes:
    • Even though a physical copy is needed for a work to become copyrighted, copyright is in the intellectual content, not a specific physical copy. The artist could have other copies of this work in places where it is perfectly lawful. If any lawful copy of the work exists — particularly if they existed before the "vandalism" — it would become very hard to prove that the only right or market for that art was a result of the unlawful copy.
    • In some jurisdictions, the government or a crime victim can sue to obtain the property used in a crime, not just the property created by the crime. (For example, if there is a bank robbery, the government can file a court case to seize the getaway car, the guns, etc.) Even if the "illegal" artist could not claim copyright in court, the government or someone harmed by the vandalism could go to court and take legal possession of the art — maybe both the physical copy and the "intellectual property" of the work. The copyright might be "cleaned" this way, and usable by the new owner, even if it wasn't valid for the "criminal".
    I think we'd be right to assert public domain on graffiti from jurisdictions where it is clear that the graffiti artist has no legal right to control the product of, or things used in, an illegal act, except when someone someone sues to force a specific work out of the artist's hands. But we need to find court cases that actually establish where, if anywhere, copyrights can really become "zombies" (or even completely extinguished) through a criminal act this way. --Closeapple (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. This may be a long comment but worth reading. My dad bought some land with a 1949 Ford truck on it in BC, Canada, in the early 80s. The truck had an expired plate from the 70s still on the bumper. One day the truck was gone. Dad inquired and found that someone had traced the last owner through BC's well kept plate records. He contacted the owner, bought the truck, and had it towed. If dad had simply removed the plate this never would have happened as owner records through serial numbers would not have worked. w:Res nullius is mentioned above. It mentions abandoned property as 'finders keepers'. Without a signed work of graffiti this may be the same as the truck with no plate so we may wish to be cautious with signed works. As stated in earlier discussions this has never been tested in court in the USA where our servers are. Until it is tested the template is a warning to re-users that in the future we may delete some of these images. Our Com:PRP is based on existing copyright laws. Since there is no legal decision on graffiti then there is no copyright law on it at this point to base our policy on. Persons cannot claim any rights on illegal acts nor profit from them. See: w:Son of Sam law. Any court case would involve some sort of profit from a crime. It was also brought up that other works may exist that are legal and created before the illegal work. The Son of Sam law would still dis-allow any action on images of the illegal work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input so far. One major problem still remains so far: How can you tell a illegal graffiti apart from a legal one? What if the owner gives consent after it was sprayed? Imho you often can't tell.
Also what Closeapple and Canoe1967 wrote is probably only true for some jurisdiction and it should be specified which one. The w:Son of Sam law for example seems to be a state law, so in other states the situation might be different. --Isderion (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With File:EdwardSnowdenMural.jpg I located the area from the geodata and looked around the neighborhood in Google street view. It looks like a mess of illegal graffiti. I can't see a bus company that has been bad mouthed on their site being a nice guy to the local graffiti painters. They don't have email but someone local could phone them and ask.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Canada story would not have taken place in e.g. the Netherlands, where nl:Natrekking would have prevented this. Note that Wikimedians all over Europe are connected to the servers in the Netherlands. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There actually are some legal cases where the author of illegal artwork attempts to assert copyright. I'm not quite sure what conclusion we must draw from them, but here they are:
    • cour d'appel (appellate court) of Paris, 27 April 1934: artist Joseph Lacasse paints the walls of a chapel in Juvisy without the owner's authorisation. The court states the owner can destroy the frescoes because the owner's rights (abusus) outweighs the artist's rights.
    • TGI (district court) of Paris 13 October 2000 & appellate court of Paris 29 January 2002 (Aichouba v Lecole): a group of young people decorate with mosaics the walls of a squat. One day the owner decides to demolish the building. The artists sue for compensation on grounds of their moral rights, specifically the right of integrity. The district court of Paris decides the squatters aren't due any compensation because the artwork was unlawfully made. Yet the court grants two months' delay to remove the artwork themselves. The appellate court upholds the decision.
    • Kammergericht (appellate court) of Berlin, 8 January 2004 & Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), 23 February 1995: fragments of the Berlin wall decorated with paintings are sold without the artists' consent. The Kammergericht dismisses the artists' claim: in choosing the wall as a medium the artists couldn't possibly think they could gain anything else than public exposure or perhaps postcard sales. The BGH states that the artists retrain the right to disseminate their artwork even though they made it on another person's property, in this case the German Democratic Republic. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The german case is not relevant, because graffiti in Germany is covered by FoP 2d
      • The French cases seem to imply to copyright and moral rights from illegal activities do exist, but that in the end the ownership rights outweigh the artist's rights. --Isderion (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the several legal cases cited above and weighing the arguments presented in this debate against one another, it would appear that artwork created on a medium without the owner's consent cannot qualify for copyright. In a nutshell, the courts simply do not rule in favor of the graffiti artist; even if the graffiti artist was to assert copyright, the courts seem to either dismiss the case or (in the case of imminent destruction) rule in favor of the owner of the medium used. Taking into account the evidence laid out above, this license tag is probably okay for Commons. However, I do note that care should be taken in applying this tag. Any graffiti that is not verified by some credible source to be illegal (and/or taken in a country restricting FOP) cannot be uploaded to Commons, because as a (likely) sanctioned work, it becomes a derivative of non-free content. Naturally, should anyone find any new contradictory evidence, a new, special discussion should be initiated at COM:RFC to re-evaluate Commons' policies on illegal grafitti. -FASTILY 06:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]