Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/08/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![8 File:Shada at Cartoon Networks "Hall of Game" rewards- 2013-08-04 12-15.jpg](#File:Shada_at_Cartoon_Networks_"Hall_of_Game"_rewards-_2013-08-04_12-15.jpg){kind=link}
_Tristan_Evans,_Brad_Simpson,_Connor_Ball,_James_McVey_2013-08-02_12-25.jpg){kind=link}
_Inati,_Daniel,_Youngwon,_Jeesu,_Simon_2013-08-01_21-45.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
as_the_Jury_in_a_literary_debate.jpg){kind=link}
Not free use - you can't just take a photo of your television and claim to be the copyright owner. Miyagawa (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I am going to add a copyvio tag. It should go quickly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Speedy copyvioCanoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by user with history of uploading non-free content Mattythewhite (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by user with history of uploading non-free content. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://laneway.festival-photography.com/view/73930f34-55cd-11e1-9dac-fefd616b8533?image_keywords=Portugal.+The+Man. INeverCry 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No proof is offered that the BBC have placed this image in the public domain. Keith Edkins (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy, blatant copyvio. Tbhotch™ 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Higher resolution published before http://www.alkoutnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/299381.jpg −ebraminiotalk 12:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio russavia (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of a website −ebraminiotalk 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio russavia (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio via grabbed from internet.Gunnex (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio russavia (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a copyright violations: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Jeremy+Shada I am One of Many (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
![20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/08/04#c-I_am_One_of_Many-2013-08-04T20:51:00.000Z-File:Shada_at_Cartoon_Networks_"Hall_of_Game"_rewards-_2013-08-04_12-15.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio russavia (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
![22:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/08/04#c-Russavia-2013-08-05T22:09:00.000Z-File:Shada_at_Cartoon_Networks_"Hall_of_Game"_rewards-_2013-08-04_12-15.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright held by FIFA Mattythewhite (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation JuTa 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright held by FIFA. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation JuTa 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright held by Getty. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation JuTa 22:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation JuTa 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality genital photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality genital photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality genital photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unusual Julo (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, no educational purpose. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep This good quality photo has a careful composition of textures with nicely angled natural light showing the edges. It can be used to illustrate brickwork, damp-courses (prominent in the shot) and parking signage as well as to convey a certain grey mood. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)- Keep A good quality artistic photograph. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly in scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality ProfesorFavalli (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. + not own work anyway = prob. copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Mattythewhite (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Incluye propaganda: "Propdental" tomada de: http://www.propdental.es/dentista/flemon-dental/ Raimundo Pastor (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant spam. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
File:(From left to right) Tristan Evans, Brad Simpson, Connor Ball, James McVey 2013-08-02 12-25.jpg
[edit]_Tristan_Evans,_Brad_Simpson,_Connor_Ball,_James_McVey_2013-08-02_12-25.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Tristan_Evans,_Brad_Simpson,_Connor_Ball,_James_McVey_2013-08-02_12-25.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
_Inati,_Daniel,_Youngwon,_Jeesu,_Simon_2013-08-01_21-45.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Inati,_Daniel,_Youngwon,_Jeesu,_Simon_2013-08-01_21-45.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
_Inati,_Daniel,_Youngwon,_Jeesu,_Simon_2013-08-01_21-45.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
_Inati,_Daniel,_Youngwon,_Jeesu,_Simon_2013-08-01_21-45.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Invalid licensing as this contains a number of fair use logos. Cloudbound (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
User's other uploads were all copyvios, likely this one is not own work either IMO. Even if not, with no information it's out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope? Really own work (small resolution)? Leyo 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value and possible vandalism Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Brayden Smith is a Norman High School Student and Athlete at the moment- 2013-07-17 23-50.jpg
[edit]
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyright infringement ProfesorFavalli (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyright infringement ProfesorFavalli (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement ProfesorFavalli (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Currency#India. --El Grafo (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Currency#India. --El Grafo (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use', i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Currency#India. --El Grafo (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Tm as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: derivative work of non permanent sculpture so no FOP. Tm (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Lymantria (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, eventually an (cropped) album cover of es:Juan Antonio Jiménez Muñoz Gunnex (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software House (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photographed painting is by Louis Sparre (died 1964) and won't be PD until 70 years have passed since the death of the author. See COM:CRT#Sweden. Jafeluv (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Derivative work of http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-69190024/stock-photo-multicolored-map-of-europe-raster-version-vector-version-is-also-available.html?src=same_artist-65669545-6 This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Designed by A.W. Rancken (1880–1954), the coat of arms is under copyright until 70 years have been passed since the death of the author. Although it was proposed as the coat of arms of Koijärvi it was never made official – in fact Koijärvi (now part of Forssa) had no officially designated coat of arms at all. Therefore the image does not fall under the exemption of {{PD-Coa-Finland}}. Jafeluv (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and lots of images that may be used to replace, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- {{Sofixit}} - it's still linked to from articles, so until and only until you find a better image to replace, I'm saying Keep because something is better than nothing. Also it'd be of more use to notify the original uploader rather than a person who simply transferred the freely-licensed image to commons. --Addihockey10 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. INeverCry 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The coat of arms was designed by Harri Uimonen (b. 1930) after the town had already been annexed to the USSR. The Finnish town had no officially designated coat of arms during its existence, so the {{PD-Coa-Finland}} exemption does not apply. The design is also not old enough to be PD by age. The current Russian town has its own COA (Coat of Arms of Lahdenpohja (Karelia).gif), unrelated to this one. Jafeluv (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This was never the official coat of arms of Metsäpirtti. The municipality ceased to exist in 1944 when it was annexed to the USSR, while the coat of arms by Jukka Suvisaari was only designed in 1991 [1]. The design does not fall under {{PD-Coa-Finland}} and is therefore still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't noticed that restriction, thanks by the advice. Delete!, bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
creative work, no evidence uploader has permission of TVReality or this pageant's parent organization DMacks (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. You can delete it. I don't have any objections. Thanks for the mentioning bro :) -- SuryaPrakash Talk... 11:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. You can delete it. I don't have any objections. Thanks for the mentioning bro :) -- SuryaPrakash Talk... 11:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. You can delete it. I don't have any objections. Thanks for the mentioning bro :) -- SuryaPrakash Talk... 11:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploader changed author field and removed the license (which I just restored). This inicates that this is not own work as stated. JuTa 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It says copyright 2007 - Picture Works, Inc. Miami, Florida, so we can't keep it. --El Grafo (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Its looking pretty much like out of scope. JuTa 17:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vituzzu as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: no educational purpose, pict with unknown copyright status uploaded for a completely not relevant page Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC) And:
- Delete I agree with Vituzzu, totally of scope, (c) status not clear. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
nothing but glare, no use for any project Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
as_the_Jury_in_a_literary_debate.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
as_the_Jury_in_a_literary_debate.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
imho authorship not clear [see metadata] and not in use, Roland zh 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
as_the_Jury_in_a_literary_debate.jpg){kind=link}
small unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho authorship not clear [see metadata and missing links of montage] and not in use, Roland zh 01:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 01:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope - put it on facebook Mjrmtg (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Peru is 70 years from death according to their law on copyright. This, therefore seems too recent for PD Old and the licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
looks like an ad, unused, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. definitely an ad. Warfieldian (talk)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: low quality image of tshirt Basvb (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this photo and any other ones uploaded by this user listed for the same reason. WorldTraveller101 Comments 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and all other of his photos. WorldTraveller101 ? 16:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No com:fop#Denmark for statues. 67.87.46.39 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: See warning at Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). --El Grafo (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement ProfesorFavalli (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
derivative work, no FOP because it's not permanently exposed darkweasel94 14:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Below ToO, no copyright infringement. --Happolati (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Subida fallida Jorge Abellán (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, probably a scan copy Sealle (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
imho very 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Wesley-Sneijder-seleccion-de-Holanda.jpg
- File:Boca juniors rodrigo palacio.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Palacio.jpg
- File:Emanuel insua.jpg
- File:Perez practica Boca.jpg
- File:Federico Bravo.jpg
- File:Di Franco.jpg
- File:El Cata Diaz.png
- File:BURRITO MARTINEZ.jpg
- File:Rdrigo Palacios.jpg
- File:Di franco.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andychuen1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement, not own work.
- File:LX Spiral sand washing machine.jpg
- File:YK Vibration grading.jpg
- File:PYY Conr crusher.jpg
- File:PEV Jaw crusher.jpg
- File:PCL Impact crusher.jpg
- File:High Pressure roller mill.jpg
- File:PF Recation crusher.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, mysterious watermark.
Gunnex (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Additionally, images with red t-shirt need - per http://www.flickr.com/photos/33510723@N08/with/3337235701/ - permission.
- File:Yosoyes elMesias2.jpg
- File:Yo soy el Mitico Hombre-Humano3.jpg
- File:Yo soy el Mitico Hombre-Humano2.jpg
- File:Yo soy el Mitico Hombre-Humano1.jpg
- File:Yo soy el Mesias.Plaça Tiradente RJ Brazil.jpg
- File:VIDEO DOY LAFIJA.jpg
- File:Rio de Janeiro,Zona Lapa.jpg
- File:Plaça Tiradente yo soy.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, not in use.
- File:JBFA-0016.jpg
- File:JBFA-0015.jpg
- File:JBFA-0013.jpg
- File:JBFA-0014.jpg
- File:JBFA-0011.jpg
- File:JBFA-0012.jpg
- File:JBFA-0010.jpg
- File:JBFA-006.jpg
- File:JBFA-005.jpg
- File:JBFA-004.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Josefin2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo, not own work.
- File:Bilden för Förhäxad säsong 4 2013-08-03 00-27.jpg
- File:America's Next Top Model- College Edition- Är säsong 19 av serien- 2013-08-03 00-21.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by K.Abdul Ghani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Election commissioner Shri.Praveen Kumar and Social Activist k.Abdul Ghani.jpg
- File:Actor Dhanush and Social Activist k.Abdul Ghani to support in protecting Environment.jpg
- File:Actor Vijay and Social Activist k.Abdul Ghani Planted sapling at Us Consulate Chennai.png
- File:Actor Vijay and Social Activist k.Abdul Ghani Planted sapling at Us Consulate Chennai.jpg
- File:Tamil actor vijay planted sapling on world environment day With K.Abdul Ghani , Social Activist photos 2b57f5d.jpg
- File:K.Abdul Ghani ,Social Activist.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kalchostoyanov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by M.GatesSullivan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:Avenged-Sevenfold1.jpg
- File:YouRock.jpg
- File:Pinkly+Smooth+Pinky+smooth.jpg
- File:Synyster-gates--large-msg-124283389265.jpg
- File:Tumblr mqreopAcUT1sr01bso1 500.jpg
- File:Synyster-gates-tattoos-show-me-your-pictures-baby-list-20312.jpg
- File:Synyster-gates-marlboro--large-msg-120960330659.jpg
- File:Syns-tattoos--large-msg-133019982777.jpg
- File:Synyster gates in kerrang by foreverjimmysullivan-d4grty2.jpg
- File:A7xtat10.jpg.w180h170.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Deleteclearly not own work. Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Screenshots, figures, etc. from the game Minecraft, uploaded in 2013 / 2012 and mostly uncategorized (or recently categorized). Obvioulsy not "own work", as declared. Inumerous related deletion requests and discussions available and - as I could follow - the related files were all deleted. Reference-DR might be eventually Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft 1.1 Title.png. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft.
- File:صنع السيف.png
- File:صنع سيف.png
- File:صنع السهم.png
- File:صنع القوس.png
- File:صنع ساعة.png
- File:صنع شحنة نارية.png
- File:صنع مقص الجز.png
- File:صنع خريطة.png
- File:صنع بوصلة.png
- File:صنع المعول.png
- File:صنع القداحة.png
- File:صنع المعزقة.png
- File:صنع الفأس.png
- File:صنع الصنارة.png
- File:صنع الدلو.png
- File:صنع المجرفة.png
- File:صنع متفجرات.png
- File:صنع كتلة معدن.png
- File:صنع فانوس اليقطين.png
- File:صنع طوب حجري.png
- File:صنع طوب.png
- File:صنع صوف.png
- File:صنع صلصال.png
- File:صنع رف كتب.png
- File:صنع درج خشبي.png
- File:صنع حجر مضيء.png
- File:صنع درج حجري.png
- File:صنع بلاطة خشبية.png
- File:صنع بلاطة حجرية.png
- File:صنع ثلج.png
- File:حجر رملي1.png
- File:حجر رملي3.png
- File:حجر رملي2.png
- File:صنع الواح الخشب.png
- File:صنع طاولة النجارة.png
- File:صنع الفرن.png
- File:صنع الصندوق.png
- File:صنع العصا.png
- File:صنع الشعلة.png
- File:صورة ادوات الكسر للفأس.png
- File:صنع الفأس الذهبي.png
- File:صنع الفأس الخشبي.png
- File:صنع الفأس الحديدي.png
- File:صنع الفأس الألماسي.png
- File:صنع الفأس الحجري.png
- File:انواع الفؤوس.png
Gunnex (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyright violation. −ebraminiotalk 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant copyvios Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:EVOLUTION SHEEt.png
- File:Heymonday01LH.jpg
- File:199dddddddddddddddd.jpg
- File:Brujita Loca.png
- File:Evolucion Hombre.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused web site graphics of unclear origins.
- File:Top 5 songs.png
- File:Me gusta.png
- File:Top 5 albums.png
- File:Button dowload.png
- File:Button Avril.png
- File:Button Charla.png
- File:Button WDF.png
- File:Buttonof tv camaguey.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by احمد ابو الوفا 1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Unusable map in Wikimedia projects, because shows simultaneously distribution of Mapuche people in many different times (c. 1500, c. 1700, c. 1880). Uploader claims it is distribution c. 1540. --Lin linao ¿dime? 09:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No idea in how far the contents of the map are correct or not, but the source of the map this was built upon is not given. Probably a copyright violation. --El Grafo (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
bad filename Cyrkiel-network (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can use {{Rename}} for this. darkweasel94 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader req FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Единственный вклад участника. Большая вероятность нарушения авторских прав. — Redboston 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Although part of the New York World Telegram & Sun collection, this is not a work of a NYTW&S staff photographer and therefore does not qualify for {{PD-NYWT&S}}. —howcheng {chat} 02:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am confused. This file uses {{PD-US}} not {{PD-NYWT&S}}. --Jarekt (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. PD-US is the template on the page, but in the "Source" section, the uploader claims PD status with "According to the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection,who I owns the rights to this photo, this photo is considered public domain as a gift. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html". This is the basis for PD-NYWT&S. The uploader also helpfully copied the statement "Publication may be restricted" from the LOC image page. —howcheng {chat} 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete at the moment this photo taken in 1956 claims PD because it was published before 1923. So the current claim is wrong. I will change my vote if there is some other reason this might be PD. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. PD-US is the template on the page, but in the "Source" section, the uploader claims PD status with "According to the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection,who I owns the rights to this photo, this photo is considered public domain as a gift. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/076_nyw.html". This is the basis for PD-NYWT&S. The uploader also helpfully copied the statement "Publication may be restricted" from the LOC image page. —howcheng {chat} 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Oxnylia
[edit]- File:Show Serpentile Music Machine 2.jpg
- File:Show Serpentile Witch Shoe.jpg
- File:Show Serpentile To Be Set Free Neuron.jpg
- File:Oxnylia Serpentile.jpg
- File:Show Serpentile Music Machine.jpg
- File:Oxnylia.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:Oxnylia. I believe they should be deleted because the article in which these images were intended for, does not have valid references, and thus declining the article's publication at this time.Oxnylia (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jacklee as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contains an unauthorized derivative work in the form of the drawing on the logo. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: unfortunately, the Transformers face in the logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} and too large and central to be de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Jacklee. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jacklee as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contains unauthorized derivative works on the sign. No freedom of panorama for two-dimensional works in Singapore. Section 63 seems to OK this? Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: see discussion at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Transformers The Ride facade at Universal Studios Hollywood.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jacklee as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contains unauthorized derivative works on the sign. No freedom of panorama for two-dimensional works in Singapore. Section 63 seems to OK this? Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: no, because freedom of panorama in Singapore does not include two-dimensional objects unless they are a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Section 63 of the Copyright Act states: "This section shall apply to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of 'artistic work' in section 7." The definition of artistic work in section 7 is: "(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not; (b) a building or model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies ..." Thus, "work of artistic craftsmanship" excludes all types of artistic works in paragraph (a), including paintings, drawings and photographs. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (no permission since). the permission could be found on the source page as I myself verified that when uploading. However the link seems to be expired. Bencmq (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong information. Nurek dam is in another country. The link goes to an image of Kurpsai dam. Peter in s (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Joke/Fake 91.65.158.162 09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The UK Open Government Licence v1.0 does not appear to cover the reproduction of a Birth certificate, it explicit excludes :
- personal data in the Information and
- identity documents such as the British Passport;
so as this image would appear to be crown copyright in the UK it can not be hosted on commons. LGA talkedits 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a misinterpretation of the licence. The licence excludes the copying of permits copying personal data because the licence-holder (ie the British Government) does not own the data. The grant of permission to use the data must come from the data-owner, in this case the family of William, Duke of Cambridge, which, from Wikipedia's point of view, brings [2] into play. Under WP:BLP the subjects (or their guardians) published the information so privacy issue disappears. The layout of the blank form is covered by the Open Government Licence. I request that this deletion request be denied on grounds that the requestor misinterpreted the issues concerned. Martinvl (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have not misinterpreted anything; you (as the uploader) claim that the image is covered by the Open Government Licence, the link above explicitly excludes identity documents which a birth certificate is one. Further to that if you look at The National Archives : Copying of birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates where it it states "Copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown" and that "You are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print. This authorisation is subject to the following conditions" one of those is "That you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998." and specificity "This guidance does not authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals" to me it is clear that we can not rely upon the terms of the Open Government Licence to host this image as it contains personal data about living individuals. LGA talkedits 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The same document states "The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms." Since the Crown does not own the data, it cannot authorize the copying of the data, but it does not prohibit the copying either - that is a matter between the owner of the data and the copier. In this case the owner of the data made the data public.
- Imagine that you have possession of a fishbowl owned by Adam containing a goldfish owned by Betty. Adam says to me "I would like to give you this fishbowl, but I cannot do so because Betty's goldfish is in it". If however Betty says to me "I am happy to give you my goldfish", the problem is solved and you should hand the goldfish and the fishbowl over to me.
- Finally, may I remind you that copyright exists to protect the interests of third parties. Whose interests are being compromised by the publication of this document? Not the Crown's interests, their work is free to copy provided that the interests of third parties are respected. The privacy interests of the Duke of Cambridge and his family are not being compromised because his office made the whole thing public. So, unless you can identify whose interest are being compromised, there is no case for a deletion. 86.140.147.216 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately in this case it seems that Adam really said "I'll give you my fishbowl if there is no other person's fish in it", not "... if the owner of the fish in it doesn't object". It's unfortunate but that's what the license says - copyright isn't subject to common sense, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. ;) However it should be checked if it even passes COM:TOO. darkweasel94 20:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to COM:TOO; the "level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low" and as Commons requires images to be free in both the United States and according to the law of the source country and given the statement made above it is clear that the UK does consider it to be copyright. LGA talkedits 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- We can't assume that we must have a licence that unequivocally allows it's use at the moment there is no such unequivocal licence. LGA talkedits 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately in this case it seems that Adam really said "I'll give you my fishbowl if there is no other person's fish in it", not "... if the owner of the fish in it doesn't object". It's unfortunate but that's what the license says - copyright isn't subject to common sense, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. ;) However it should be checked if it even passes COM:TOO. darkweasel94 20:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have not misinterpreted anything; you (as the uploader) claim that the image is covered by the Open Government Licence, the link above explicitly excludes identity documents which a birth certificate is one. Further to that if you look at The National Archives : Copying of birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates where it it states "Copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown" and that "You are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print. This authorisation is subject to the following conditions" one of those is "That you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998." and specificity "This guidance does not authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals" to me it is clear that we can not rely upon the terms of the Open Government Licence to host this image as it contains personal data about living individuals. LGA talkedits 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason for deletion was cited as:
- Reason for the nomination: The UK Open Government Licence v1.0 does not appear to cover the reproduction of a Birth certificate, it explicit excludes :
- personal data in the Information and
- identity documents such as the British Passport;
- so as this image would appear to be crown copyright in the UK it can not be hosted on commons.
The phrase "this image would appear to be crown copyright in the UK" is incorrect. Crown copyright subsists in the blank form only, so the image as a whole is not crown copyright, therefore the reason for deletion does not hold water. The proposer of deletion would do a lot better if they would assist in identifying the correct licence to be used in this instance. 86.140.147.216 20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a licence that is available to use, hence the DR. LGA talkedits 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- If there is no available licence, but the various owners of the image have all given permission for their respective parts to be used, then the Wikipedia licencing process is at fault and that needs to be rectified. This should be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, it should not be handled by a bunch of wannabe lawyers (myself included). 86.140.147.216 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- But they have not, the permission for use of the form is only granted if and when there is no personal information about anyone living on the form. As there is personal information about a living person there is no permission. LGA talkedits 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- If there is no available licence, but the various owners of the image have all given permission for their respective parts to be used, then the Wikipedia licencing process is at fault and that needs to be rectified. This should be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, it should not be handled by a bunch of wannabe lawyers (myself included). 86.140.147.216 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a licence that is available to use, hence the DR. LGA talkedits 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As the licence declaration made does not prove the right to publish this image, the image must be deleted. As the contents of the image relate to living people, I believe this image needs to be deleted immediately. Note too that I believe the comments above signed as both Martinvl and 86.140.147.216 were made by the same contributor. InterestingPics (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I inadvertently added a comment after coming into Wikimedia Commons via an unusual route and did not log in. Martinvl (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since the image concerned was actually published by the office of the people concerned, the request to delete the image immediately is without merit. Martinvl (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unless you can show that all of the owners of the copyright to all the of material in the image you uploaded gave their explicit consent for it to be copied in the way that you copied it, then it should be deleted immediately. Currently you have only shown that you have permission to upload the blank registration form. That those involved had the right to publish it on their Twitter page does NOT imply that consent for your upload to Wikimedia Commons was given. InterestingPics (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since the image concerned was actually published by the office of the people concerned, the request to delete the image immediately is without merit. Martinvl (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Revised licence text
[edit]
I have revised the licence text. Any discussion regarding the deletion of the image should refer to the new licence text, not the old licence text. Martinvl (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The new wording commences with the sentence "The rights to this image are shared between the Crown and the family of the Duke of Cambridge." This totally negates the concluding phrase in the deletion request: "... so as this image would appear to be crown copyright in the UK ...". Martinvl (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- As InterestingPics points out above, it still lacks the proof that "all of the owners of the copyright to all the of material in the image ....explicit consent for it to be copied in the way that you copied it" (my bold). As is pointed out to you above due to the wording of the Open Government Licence in relation to forms with personal data it is not possible to use that Licence as proof it is licensed. LGA talkedits 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please name those who I have left out. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- At the moment there is no evidence of any permission for this image. Publishing anything on Twitter does not mean you licence the image CC-BY-SA, and as repeatedly pointed out the Open Government Licence does not cover the form in this case. LGA talkedits 07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please name those who I have left out. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- As InterestingPics points out above, it still lacks the proof that "all of the owners of the copyright to all the of material in the image ....explicit consent for it to be copied in the way that you copied it" (my bold). As is pointed out to you above due to the wording of the Open Government Licence in relation to forms with personal data it is not possible to use that Licence as proof it is licensed. LGA talkedits 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
To my mind there are three components to copyright here:
- The layout of the form which is covered by the government licence cited.
- The contents of the form which are not eligible for copyright. (Names and facts are not eligible for copyright. These names and facts have been widely published as a matter of public interest overcoming any separate concerns regarding privacy. There is no expectation of privacy. See also WP:PD.)
- The photograph/scan of the completed form, which is a simple reproduction of a two-dimensional object unlikely to meet the originality threshold to be eligible for copyright (see Reuse of PD-Art photographs (UK)).
Note that the DPA relates primarily to government processing of data. There are many exemptions, including journalism, literature and art in the public interest and research, history and statistics. HelenOnline (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- @HelenOnline The wording of the licence, does not cover the certificate, if you consult the the actual text of the licence excludes identity documents (a birth certificate being such a document), and the National archives guidance is clear that it "does not authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals" so there is no licence that covers the reproduction of this certificate. I don't know why this is the case be it either by design/intent or accident of wording it does not change the fact that this image falls into the category of forms which are not covered by the government licence. Secondly, while the facts on the form not eligible for copyright, the Duke's signature is copyrightable under UK copyright law - see Commons:SIG#United_Kingdom. LGA talkedits 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. Interesting about the signature. HelenOnline (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- We could always blank the signatures out. Martinvl (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- As it stands, the licence stated does not support publication of this image. InterestingPics (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are obliged to blank the signature immediately, whatever the outcome of the discussion about the licence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- We could always blank the signatures out. Martinvl (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. Interesting about the signature. HelenOnline (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- @HelenOnline The wording of the licence, does not cover the certificate, if you consult the the actual text of the licence excludes identity documents (a birth certificate being such a document), and the National archives guidance is clear that it "does not authorise you to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals" so there is no licence that covers the reproduction of this certificate. I don't know why this is the case be it either by design/intent or accident of wording it does not change the fact that this image falls into the category of forms which are not covered by the government licence. Secondly, while the facts on the form not eligible for copyright, the Duke's signature is copyrightable under UK copyright law - see Commons:SIG#United_Kingdom. LGA talkedits 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I think that on the general issue, HelenOnline described the situation correctly and concisely -- there is a license for the blank form and the personal information has been made public, so the document should be OK, except for the signature. I think we need permission for that. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted pending blurring the signature, as per [3]. Yann (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=817213885#File%3ABirth_certificate_of_Prince_George_of_Cambridge_-_20130802.jpg){kind=link}
Montage sur une photo non libre de droits. Suppression obligé. Supporterhéninois (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cinema tickets by Gunnar Stenzel
[edit]- File:Originale FFF Hamburg Kinokarten -1.jpg
- File:Originale FFF Hamburg Kinokarten -2.jpg
- File:Kino Preview Karte Scream 2 in Deutschland.jpg
These three files are photographs of cinema tickets. They are of low quality, with strange frames, and without any detailed description. In this form they appear hardly usable and are thereby out of COM:SCOPE. These files were originally uploaded to de-wp (1, 2, 3), where their usefulness was questioned and their inclusion as a reference reverted. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Today, I received a wiki mail by the uploader telling me that he does not object against a deletion of the three pictures. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Not the Laufenburg bridge as described. May be an italian bridge or an pasticcio. Docteur Ralph (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It may be true (or even not true), but no reason for deletion, 1840 is old enough --Kürschner (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion given. The caption seems to say something that may be "Laufenburg", so not even the auction house may be to blame. Keep. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The map is out of date (Sudan has been split in two in 2011). The author agrees to delete this file. He's already made an up to date map here : File:African continent-de.svg Flappiefh (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep was soll der Löschgrund sein? Fast alle Karten sind fast immer veraltet. --Ralf Roleček 12:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm currently making my best to update every map that shows former Sudan. But PNG maps are less easy to update and this one already exists as an up to date SVG file. --Flappiefh (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Das ist aber kein Löschgrund. File:Africae tabula nova.jpg also not is actual. --Ralf Roleček 18:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as historical map. darkweasel94 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Question what about renaming it to something like File:African continent pre 2011-de.png so that it's clear that it's outdated? --El Grafo (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 11:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it is derivative work of not old painting and therefore is copyright violation −ebraminiotalk 12:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Replaced by new photo "Rozi-2012.jpg" Pegy22 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's not really a reason for deletion, we can have more than one photo of a person - e.g. one with glasses and one without. :) darkweasel94 20:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Rozi-2006.jpg is not used on other wikis. --Pegy22 (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: author req FASTILY 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: "self-created artwork without obvious educational use" Tom Dräscher (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Se trata de una prueba fallida. Solicito su borrado permanente. Jorge Abellán (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Se trata de una prueba fallida. Solicito su borrado permanente. Jorge Abellán (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Se trata de una prueba fallida. Solicito su borrado permanente. Jorge Abellán (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jorge Abellán as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Author request KTo288 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Se trata de una prueba fallida. Solicito su borrado permanente. Jorge Abellán (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jorge Abellán as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Author request KTo288 (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No source information. The uploader obviously got the file from somewhere, but chose not to tell us. Lx 121 blanked out the {{No source since}} tag, falsely claiming in the edit summary that the "This file has a source," which it clearly doesn't. While it might be obvious that the photo was taken prior to 1923, US copyright law deals solely with publication, not creation. Unpublished photos are common and hugely problematic, as they can remain protected by copyright long after what one might otherwise expect. Files uploaded under the same filename have been deleted twice before. If this file is identical, this is a candidate for speedy deletion in accordance with Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General reasons (4). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France for modern buildings.
- File:65th Cannes Film Festival.jpg
- File:Affiche vum Festival vu Cannes 2006.JPG
- File:Cannes (5647000889).jpg
- File:Cannes - Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.jpg
- File:Cannes 2005 Palace.jpg
- File:Cannes 38.jpg
- File:Cannes palace nuit.jpg
- File:Cannes Palace.jpg
- File:Cannes.Palace.inside.jpg
- File:Cannes1.JPG
File:Mipim vindkraftverk Lego Copenhagen Malmo Region 20130312 5558F (8558306400).jpgnot the palais des festivals (category removed)- File:MIPTV - outside view.JPG
- File:MIPTV 2012.JPG
- File:Palais des festivals (Cannes).jpg
- File:Palais des festivals Cannes.jpg
- File:Inside the Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.jpg
- File:Cannes festival palace 2007.jpg
- File:Montée des marches.jpg
- File:The Festival Palace of Cannes.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for File:Cannes palace nuit.jpg and File:Montée des marches.jpg for COM:DM as the subject of these 2 pictures is the event (Festival de Cannes) with the audience, and not especially the building. Jeriby (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- A mass deletion request might not have been a great idea because it's a lot more complicated that it seems to be ! Delete when it's clearly the main subject because there's no FoP in France for modern buildings... but there's a de minimis rule that allow us to keep files where the "Palais des festivals" is not the main subject. Keep without any doubt the following files (when it's a general view of Cannes or when the picture is mainly focused on something else) : File:Cannes (5647556248).jpg, File:Cannes - port et croisette.jpg, File:Cannes Overview.jpeg, File:Cannes vu du Suquet.JPG, File:Cannes-panorama-2009.jpg, File:CannesHaven.jpg, File:Le Majestic 010.jpg (main subject is Le Majestic), File:People on Cannes red carpet.jpg (main subject is people on the red carpet), File:Port cannes.jpg, File:Rolls Royce in Cannes.jpg (main subject is the car) and File:Cannes.Redcarpet.jpg (main subject is the red carpet). Keep maybe ! We could argue on other files where it's not clear if de minimis applies : File:Cannes,France,FromTheSea-March2004.jpg (it's a general view of the seaside of Cannes but the palais des festivals is quite a main subject...), File:Cannes palace nuit.jpg (the file mainly focuses on people and the red carpet, and we see very little of the building itself and we could hardly say that the Cannes festival logo is a copyvio...), File:Cannes.Palace.inside.jpg (maybe this one is a bigger problem but we could wonder if there's enough copyrighted material in that picture), File:Inside the Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.jpg (the files mainly focuses on the audience, seats and projectors, the architecture of the building is not really visible), File:Cannes festival palace 2007.jpg (more than half of this picture is the red carpet and the big top that hides most of the poster and the building), and File:Montée des marches.jpg (main subject is the red carpet, we don't see much of the architecture, but we see quite a big part of the copyrighted poster - that higher part could be cropped off if it's not considered as "de minimis"). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted those where the building or a copyrighted banner (or both together) were the principal subject. Kept a few where the copyrighted material was de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1982 by Hubert Bennett (1909–2000) and the architectural firm François Druet. There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2071.
- File:02008 Palais des Festivals et des Congrès, Espace Riviera Cannes.jpg
- File:2016 Palais des festivals.jpg
- File:20210720 080933 Grand auditorium Louis Lumière.jpg
- File:Cannes - Boulevard de la Croisette - View West on Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.jpg
- File:Cannes - ECOC 2014 Conference - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cannes 2005 Palace.jpg
- File:Cannes Film Festival1.jpg
- File:Cannes, le Palais des Festivals - panoramio.jpg
- File:Festivalový palác v Cannes.jpg
- File:Les Fameuses Marches de Cannes, sans le tapis rouge.jpg
- File:Les marches du palais des congrès (Cannes) en période de Palais du festival (Cannes) en période de CANNESERIES (avril 2023).JPG
- File:Palais des congrès (Cannes) en avril 2023.JPG
- File:Palais des festivals et des congres de Cannes IMG 1297.jpg
- File:Palais des Festivals et des Congres, Cannes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Palais des Festivals et des Congres, Cannes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France - panoramio.jpg
- File:Palais des festivals et des congrès de Cannes.JPG
- File:Palais du festival (Cannes) en période de CANNESERIES (avril 2023) - 2.JPG
- File:Sergio LeoneAusstellung im Palais der Filmfestspiel Cannes2019.jpg
- File:Theatre Claude Debussy - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Theatre Claude Debussy - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Theatre Claude Debussy - panoramio.jpg
_en_p%C3%A9riode_de_Palais_du_festival_(Cannes)_en_p%C3%A9riode_de_CANNESERIES_(avril_2023).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_en_avril_2023.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_en_p%C3%A9riode_de_CANNESERIES_(avril_2023)_-_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
{{no license|month=August|day=4|year=2013}} Ralarwdins (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyvio FASTILY 11:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cette photo doit etre supprimé car Olivier Minne ne veut plus que cette photo apparaisse sur sa page Wikipédia, il ne veut pas qu'elle soit utilisée de façon officielle. Bmarceau (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, my French is too bad to say what I want to say, but I can understand this DR: As Olivier Minne seems to be a public person, I see no real reason to delete unless we have better photos of him. If he wants some official photo to appear on Wikipedia, he will need to have its photographer release it under a free license so it can be uploaded here. darkweasel94 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm Bertrand Marceau, I took this photography in 2007, and I ask : delete this photo, Olivier Minne himself asked me this. Thank you (excuse me if my english isn't good)--Bmarceau (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- English: The uploader and the subject ask for a courtesy delete. My feelings are mixed, as we don't have another picture of this person, who is the host of Fort Boyard, a long running french tv show.
- Français : Le téléverseur et le sujet demandent une suppression de courtoisie. Je suis un peu gêné, puisque nous n'avons pas d'autres images de ce présentateur.
- Pleclown (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Je peux comprendre que vous n'avez pas d'autres images de cet animateur mais : 1) il ne veut pas que cette image illustre sa page wikipédia 2) c'est moi qui ai fait cette photo et je demande à ce qu'elle soit supprimée. Donc merci à vous de bien vouloir supprimer cette image, c'est un respect de droit à l'image et de droit d'auteur — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.56.199 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment, en matière de droit d'auteur ce ne serait pas une raison suffisante en raison de la licence, le CC-BY-SA aurait pu permettre jusqu'à présent que n'importe qui sur Internet exporte la photo et la diffuse ailleurs que sur Commons avec la même licence. Idem le droit à l'image et les demandes de la part de la personne prise en photo n'aboutissent pas toujours à une suppression (il y a déjà eu des cas où la demande soit refusée, en particulier quand la source de la demande n'est pas vérifiable). Mais comme c'est l'auteur de la photo qui fait la demande, elle peut être acceptée par le droit de retrait, à la condition que la photo ne soit pas utilisée ailleurs sur Internet (c'est la base du principe de droit de retrait...). Jeriby (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
L'image n'est utilisée que sur Wikipédia et Wikimedia Commons ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarceau (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The licnese given when the image was uploaded cannot be revoked. We have no other image of this person. We do not generally delete images at the request of their subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Cette photo m'appartient, et il me semble être mon droit de décider ce qu'il en est, du fait de son utilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarceau (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. When you licensed it with CC-BY-SA and GNU licenses in 2010 you gave up the right to determine what use is made of it. You can require that users credit you and share alike, but you have no other rights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Il faut un retour en arrière, il le faut absolument, je repète que cette photo ne doit plus apparaître. En 2010 ça ne posait pas de problème mais maintenant ça en pose un, cette photo doit etre enlevée immédiatement. Merci
C'est peut-etre comme ça mais ce n'est pas normal, quand une photo pose problème on doit etre en mesure de la retirer. Si c'etait une photo avec quelque chose finalement de grave, comment ferait-on ?
Cette photo doit être supprimée, car Olivier Minne lui même ne veut pas que cette photo serve à illustrer sa page Wikipedia. C'est moi même qui ait fait cette photo et je demande à ce qu'elle soit retirée ! Merci Bmarceau (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. C'est une photo d'une personnalité publique prise dans le cadre de ses « fonctions » (animateur de télévision), donc si je me souviens bien de mes cours de droit de la presse, l'autorisation de la personne photographiée n'est pas nécessaire. Cordialement, Jules78120 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: CC-By-SA licence can't be removed. If Bertrand Marceau or Olivier Mine can provide a good picture of him (with right licence and authorization), probably this (bad) one will not appear again... ----MGuf (d) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oui là je suis bien d'accord mais Olivier Minne lui-même considère que cette photo est à caractère privée, ce que je comprends puisqu'il n'est pas en tenue pour présenter l'émission. Du moins il ne veut pas que cette photo soit utilisée pour les autres sites. Alors mettez un filigrane ou supprimez-la je veux pas le savoir mais faites quelque chose ! Cordialement
- Peu importe ce qu'il considère lui. Je vois mal comment un juge pourrait ici considérer qu'il y a atteinte à la vie privée de M. Minne, personnalité publique photographiée sur son lieu de travail et dans un contexte public (il n'est pas en train d'embrasser sa compagne, par exemple). Cordialement, Jules78120 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Je suis d'accord, moi-même considère ainsi que beaucoup d'autres qu'il s'agit d'une photo sympa. Je le revois au mois de Juin, j'espère juste qu'il n'y aura aucun problème. Il serait juste possible de la verrouiller ou je ne sais quoi pour éviter qu'elle soit copiée sur d'autres sites ? Cordialement
- Ben euh... la photo est sous licence double GNU et CC-BY-SA, et donc dans ces deux licences on peut (c'est marqué sous la photo): respectivement copier, distribuer, modifier pour GNU, partager et adapter pour CC-BY-SA. Donc éviter qu'elle soit copiée alors qu'elle est sous une licence où on peut copier, c'est un peu comme reprendre un cadeau qu'on a offert à Noël^^ en gros... Je ne sais pas si c'est possible. Je laisse ça aux spécialistes des licences. Jeriby (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- A mon avis non, on ne peut pas. Comme je l'ai déjà écrit, une meilleure photo éclipsera celle ci, et on n'en parlera plus. Si Mine est si mécontent de cette photo, qu'il fasse en sorte qu'un photographe de sa connaissance mette une bonne photo de lui sous licence libre, et nous le fasse savoir. ----MGuf (d) 09:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept The license is irrevocable. If you insist on keeping control over your images, then put them on Flickr, but do not bring them to Commons. No new reason appears in this second DR.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
image utilisée sans mon autorisation a nouveau Bmarceau (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Multiple statements of ownership Mattythewhite (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I am in contact with Abdullah Bashir and he has given me permission to use this image on Wikipedia, he took this photo with his iPhone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.195.4 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then please forward this permission to our support team (see Commons:OTRS for details. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 11:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
bad quality Renusharma9691 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: ...... FASTILY 11:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tbhotch as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cropped from http://jahannews.com/vglbsabffrhbggl..irrupuq8.html No evidence of ineligibility of copyright in Iran Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just uploaded a new version. The new version is under Iran copyright laws. Tabarez2 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks very different. Are you sure the signature is from the same person? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 11:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The flower looks too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan4 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Overall, it's too simple. Keep Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that we don't have any section at COM:TOO for the Netherlands. All we have is a section at Utilitarian objects protected by copyright which is hardly useful here. An image like this would definitely be copyrightable in many countries such as Austria and the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- My vote remains. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that we don't have any section at COM:TOO for the Netherlands. All we have is a section at Utilitarian objects protected by copyright which is hardly useful here. An image like this would definitely be copyrightable in many countries such as Austria and the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's no simpler version available. Keep Wikibelgiaan (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a valid argument for keeping the image as it doesn't have anything to do with its copyright status. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP applies -- unless we know that this is below the TOO in the Netherlands, we must delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be permanently installed outdoors, so COM:FOP#Germany doesn't apply. Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are more photographs of Faller products in Wikipedia. I think the best would be, to ask Faller via EMail? --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- and what is the difference to this one? File:Akkuschrauber mit Ladegeraet R7309309.jpg --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is very simple: the item must be permanently installed, or else you can't take a photo of it. Compare with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristo7.jpg which is similar. The file File:Akkuschrauber mit Ladegeraet R7309309.jpg may or may not be OK. This depends on whether the underlying item is copyrightable or not, and COM:UA doesn't seem to apply in Germany. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- and what is the difference to this one? File:Akkuschrauber mit Ladegeraet R7309309.jpg --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 11:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
