Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/08/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Huize_Assisië_Biezenmortel.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Meknes_-_Morocco.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Iraq. russavia (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleting as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Probably the same picture as that of deleted file. The file's talk page indicates "Artist: Mohammed Ghani Hikmat (1929-2011)." 2020 (as of this writing) is not yet 50+1 years after the year the artist died, and hence still a copyrighted sculpture. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Iraq has no Commons-applicable FoP. COM:OTRS email consent from the heirs of the author (Hikmat) is required, or, lobby the Iraqi legislature to permit publications of images of copyrighted Iraqi sculptures and architecture in commercial media like post cards, T-shirt prints, calendars, and commercial online vlogs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope. Weissbier (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Personal document Raymond 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Weissbier (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Personal document Raymond 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This file is the wrong resolution (500x500) it should be 300x300 {{Duplicate}} Aegidrom (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: non free album cover JuTa 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair use logo. Also exists on English Wikipedia at en:File:Houselink Community Homes Logo 300px.png with appropriate fair-use rationale. Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
When I uploaded it, I didn't know that "Argentine copyright rules don't cover film posters" as indicated by other user in a deletion request of another film poster I uploaded. Lcsrns (Talk) 00:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio and request from uploader. Tucoxn (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The description appears to be spam. I doubt they have the rights to this file either; it appears to be a poorly cropped screenshot of something else. Bradleee (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Also:
This file was initially tagged by De728631 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|Out of scope. Unused personal image with no educational value. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Unused private pictures of user, no educational value. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This file is the derivative work of another file. For example this image was posted to Benim Evim Türkiye in 2008. In this situation, there is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.244.92 05:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
nonsense pic 91.66.244.92 05:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
probably a hoax with missleading categories 91.66.244.92 06:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Advertising, not used 91.66.244.92 07:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, limited description, we have literally hundreds of similar photos. JesseW (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader: [1] [2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.244.92 07:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused JPEG, superseded by PNG. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
uploader is obviously not the author of that image as stated. JuTa 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the uploader's own work, probably just grabbed from the web: [3]. El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a textbook or something similar, probably not the uploader's own work. Might qualify for something like {{PD-simple}} though … El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Taken from flickr, but is originally from this blog (note the watermark). There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the file to flickr and placed it under a CC-license is the also the person who owns the blog. El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.244.92 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.244.92 09:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If the author is unknown, how can we know that he died > 70 years ago? We need more information about the drawing. When was it published? Where was it published? etc. El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The image was taken from a book (História geral do Brazil, Vol. 2) written by Francisco Adolfo de Varnhagen, Viscount of Porto Seguro, who died in 1878 (135 YEARS AGO)!!! You can see the book here: http://www.brasiliana.usp.br/bbd/handle/1918/01819220#page/1/mode/1up Picture Master (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Relax, there's no need to yell here. Your link doesn't work for me at the moment, but I managed to find another copy at Google Books. I've updated the information at the file description page and changed the license template to {{PD-anon-1923}}. That's still not perfect, since according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, Brazil doesn't have a rule for anonymous works. But I think that we can safely assume that whoever created the artwork died >70 years ago, which makes it free in Brazil as well. I think it's safe to
Keep the file now. —El Grafo (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
At least the top-right image of this collage is not the uploader's own work but grabbed from the web (examples: [4], [5], [6]). El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
copyvio : http://www.nicevolleyball.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:14-thomas-meunier&catid=19&Itemid=109 cobra bubbles (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As stated in the description, it is not a free image, but based on http://maps.nokia.com - so it's a derivative work of a non-free map. —Andrei S. Talk 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope.
- File:In 2013 2013-08-19 03-06.jpg
- File:Johnson getting a kill on Modern Warfare 3---YOUTUBE BACKSTORY--Johnson starting posting videos in 2011 call Nimi The Nerd(they are not on YouTube anymore)- In 2012 he made funny videos with his neighborhood f 2013-08-19 03-16.jpg
-_In_2012_he_made_funny_videos_with_his_neighborhood_f_2013-08-19_03-16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Alex (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal photos, out of project scope.
- File:03052013383asdasd.jpg
- File:03052013384asdfasdf.jpg
- File:28052013518asaaaaaaaaaannnnnnx.jpg
- File:28052013518asaaaaaaaaaannnnnnxbh.jpg
Alex (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
derivative work 91.66.244.92 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Personal photo, out of project scope. Alex (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Chúng ta nhất định phải biết nhẫn- Nhẫn cái gì---là nhẫn nhịn- Vì Iu em Iu Anh nhiều lắm 2013-07-23 22-16.jpg
[edit]
Personal photos, out of project scope.
- File:Buồn buồn ngồi đếm đêm đê- Ơ ơ ơ sao đổi ngôi 2013-07-23 22-18.jpg
- File:Anh thật ngốc đó- Thôi chuyện gì rồi cũng sẽ qua- Vì Iu em Iu Anh nhiều lắm -))))))^^ 2013-07-23 22-21.jpg
)))))%5E%5E_2013-07-23_22-21.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Alex (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent artwork. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent artwork. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, je prends note. A priori, est-ce que ça pose un problème si je les ré-uploade sur Wikipedia en français ? --El Funcionario (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, je prends note. A priori, est-ce que ça pose un problème si je les ré-uploade sur Wikipedia en français ? --El Funcionario (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture for some of them (1 and 8). No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
While freely licensed, the author does prohibit commersial use in the permission= field. It is one of the most basic requirements for files at Commons to be available for commercial use (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). So either the author agrees to remove the “but not for commercial use” or the file has to be deleted. El Grafo (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This image is a trivial aggregation of existing ones; no need for it to be a separate file. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete At a minimum, the filename seems to be somewhat misleading (if the flag existed, something I'm not too sure of, I would doubt whether it was the official flag from 1932-1946)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you see the sources i gave in the description , you will be sure that this flag is the fourth mandate flag not the independence flag, it was called that because it was the flag of syria during the independence.GhiathArodaki (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
© Corbis claims "All Rights Reserved" (outside the United States) 91.66.244.92 12:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. It's not a reproduction of a 2-dimensional work, it's a reproduction of a 3-demnesional work. The Uploader seems not to be the photographer. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused, only differs from File:Multicast L1.png by an in-image text-caption that inhibits reuse. DMacks (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo // Gikü said done Monday, 19 August 2013 14:25 (UTC) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not made by "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not made by "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2010 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not made by "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted software // Gikü said done Monday, 19 August 2013 14:29 (UTC) 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made by "Historie Medewerkers" and not in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made by "Historie Medewerkers" and not in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made by "Historie Medewerkers" and not in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not free, per http://www.aimp.ru/files/eula/License-En.rtf // Gikü said done Monday, 19 August 2013 14:35 (UTC) 14:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. Tucoxn (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Historie - medewerkers" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Historie - medewerkers" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Historie - medewerkers" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Historie - medewerkers" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichtng Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "HStichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo was not made in 2013 and not by "Stichting Prisma" Gouwenaar (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Johannes Smulders, eerste geneesheer-directeur (1872 - 1939) Huize Assisië Biezenmortel.jpg
[edit]_Huize_Assisi%C3%AB_Biezenmortel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Huize_Assisi%C3%AB_Biezenmortel.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work in 2013 by "Stichting Prisma", probably copyvio Gouwenaar (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites in better resolution. Also no Commons:Freedom of panorama in United Arab Emirates. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
_-_Meknes_-_Morocco.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Meknes_-_Morocco.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Morocco. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out-of-scope and unused. --Aplasia (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
modern art sculpture in Lebanon which has no FoP. Warfieldian (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.244.92 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced software background image. Some parts of Android are free, but other parts are unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A portrait of the uploader? 91.66.244.92 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
According to description page, not self made, yet released PD-self. Not old enough to be in the PD automatically. http://www.laerdal.com/doc/367/History does not have this particular image, but uses it in the composite at the top. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
no encyclopedic use, as people/situation are not identified, and thus is merely a personal photo. in addition, juveniles portrayed without appropriate release Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
it was test Saqib (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, redundant to File:Ph locator map tarlac.png P199 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
looks like a website, not like an own work. 91.66.244.92 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This looks way more complex than the Edge logo, so this is almost certainly copyrightable in the source country. See COM:TOO#United Kingdom. Stefan4 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Would have to agree, likely not free in the UK. LGA talkedits 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cropped and mounted with a magazine cover. Considering http://ars2013.org/keynote-speaker-alfredo-quinones-hinojosa-md/ = http://ars2013.org/wp-content/uploads/DrQuinones.jpg (full res version, exif = "COPYRIGHT CHRISTOPHER MYERS 2011") unlikely work of Doctorqmd. Permission from "CHRISTOPHER MYERS" and (for the cover) from the magazine "Baltimore" needed. Gunnex (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This is test loading. Sorry... Doomych (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
imho that upload is a Copyright violation, imho a scan or thumbnail, i.e. imho authorship not clear, very 'bad quality' and no 'educational use', i.e. imho "out of scope". BTW: Please check other uploads as imho there may be the same problems, thx, Roland zh 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for smaller sized duplicates (see relevant guidelines); usage replaced with original. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for smaller sized duplicates (see relevant guidelines); usage replaced with original. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for smaller sized duplicates (see relevant guidelines); usage replaced with original. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for smaller sized duplicates (see relevant guidelines); usage replaced with original. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this drawing realy own work of the uploader? Copies are widely spread over the internet - compare google search result. JuTa 21:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ugly and unprecise map, substituted by a better .svg image (File:Genova mappa rete filoviaria.svg). I'm the author of both Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How we can be sure, that the unknown author of this 1935 shot foto died before 1943? JuTa 21:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Noah's welcoming to YouTubers at the beginning of the video, The House part 1-2 2013-08-17 22-06.jpg
[edit]
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Suspicious Copyvio MehdiTalk 21:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
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, so these files, if they are in Commons, may coming from other authors. Gunnex (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, same image but bigger in: http://wallnest.com/wallpaper-4371/lana-del-rey-nicole-nodland-wallpaper.html and and other sites. Gusama Romero (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture from a copyright video clip. Given the user's past history of uploading copyright images from the web, this is highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. DAJF (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture from a copyright video clip. Given the user's past history of uploading copyright images from the web, this is highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. DAJF (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture from a copyright video clip. Given the user's past history of uploading copyright images from the web, this is highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. DAJF (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture from a copyright video clip. Given the user's past history of uploading copyright images from the web, this is highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. DAJF (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, with no foreseeable use. Seems dubious as own work. Chris857 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
image used only by promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
image used only by promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
por que faltan datos importantes para anexar y hay una mejor fotografía que caracteriza al personaje. Tejom (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
por varias razones, una de ellas es la fotografía, debería ponerse una de viejo. Henry leon m (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: This is surely not an {{Own}} work as claimed by the uploader. Hence, all relevant information to determine the copyright status of this upload are missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
porque tiene malisima calidad y fue tomada con un dispostivo de mal angulo.... se arrepintio de haberla puesto 201.161.162.132 01:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mediocre quality, no categories, no sufficient description, unused, and thereby out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
porque lo subi por accidente, la manipule y no sirve para ningun proyecto de wikipedia Perfíndigo (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted per the request of the uploader. The file is unused and of mediocre quality. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
todavia no esta claro lo que quiere que vea del lugar 201.161.162.132 01:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mediocre quality, very bad composition, insufficient description, insufficient categorization, unused, and thereby out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
porque ahi se ve que esta jugando y no tiene buena calidad 201.161.162.132 01:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mediocre quality, bad composition, insufficient description (Por si no se completó la fotografía), no categorization, unused, and thereby out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The image is of no educational value--worse, it is misleading. It is not a 1974 aluminum cent, but rather a digitally inverted 1974 copper penny.
Evidence includes the copper-color when de/re-inverting, a white border around the edge from partial image inversion, and the strange "glow" around the embossed features that are typically dark (including in a real Al-cent photo on the WP page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_aluminium_cent)
Additionally, the 12 Nov 2011 review seems dubious, as the current image at that page is obviously different (the black background is not perfect). Atropos235 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
1 - 6 are not used any more and can be deleted. 7 - 13 are used for articels on wikipedia, when restored. Thank you. --Urs Rüesch (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Wrong file type. Weissbier (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Worng file-type. Weissbier (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Wrong file-type. Weissbier (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused PDF file, depicting a grinning, not-notable person, and thereby out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused PDF file, depicting a grinning, not-notable person, and thereby out of scope as nominated. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Depicited person ain´t notable. Weissbier (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty PDF (0 Bytes). --AFBorchert (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This image is from a Swedish website but is it licensed freely? Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is published on Flickr. Please, see the related license info: http://www.flickr.com/photos/59292810@N07/6979252653/in/photolist-bCJuEi-bpPx7G-9uRU3C-9uN8DH-bpwn1J Best regards Pacarazzi (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK I withdraw this nomination. Keep this image as the license is cc by generic. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: DR withdrawn Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Commons:PENIS. El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of Western Bulldogs logo (see en:File:Western Bulldogs (SVG).png) LGA talkedits 09:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- No, it's not a derivative work, it's a copy of their jumper design, and should be restricted in it's use (non-free rationales etc), licenced as a non-free logo, not public domain and moved back to en. The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per comment by The-Pope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unwanted advertising (see COM:ADVERT). El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
svg version available Perumalism Chat 10:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep First of all, "svg version available" is not a valid reason for deletion, see Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. Secondly, if you're talking about File:ECIL Logo.svg this is a totally different image, therefore no duplicate, therefore no reason for deletion either. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no dup Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Svg version available Perumalism Chat 10:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio / fair use Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Given what this is it probably doesn't fail copyright rules. But it should do, film poster to a graduation film. Seems to be a bit of self promo on here and en wiki. Flickrworker (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no fair use on commons Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Jespinos (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by Denniss as recreation of deleted content. whym (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Same image than File:La coquille et le clergyman 1.jpg with much poorer quality Octave.H (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Stated "own work", "author unknown" and "pd-old-100" at the same time. There is EXIF data in the file. Seems like a photo from the picture, published in the book, and the original picture doesn't look like XVII century art Daryona (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Эта фотография находится в общественном достоянии , она висит на доске почета в здании администрации Тамбовской области, с нее сделана фотографическая копия мною лично, кто написал этот портрет неизвестно, о чем я и написал. Боборыкин умер в 1638 году, других изображений нет.--Сергей Юхачев (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Почему вы полагаете, что фотография находится в общественном достоянии? Свободный доступ к экземпляру фотографии и общественное достояние - две совершенно разные вещи.
- Если это фотография фотокопии портрета, то, возможно, здесь можно говорить о технической фотографии (фотогрфии «в лоб»), когда фотограф не получает авторских прав в связи с отсутствием творческого вклада.--Iluvatar (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Foto of maybe(?) free material. (c)-status unclear Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused and low quality (photo of hand-written diagram that includes scratch-out corrections and parts of other diagrams in bg). Have File:Multicast L1.png by same uploader of same concept in-use. DMacks (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:One direction es una boy band britanica-irlande compuesta por harry edward styles cox niall james horan gallagher liam james payne smith zayn jawaad malik army y louis william tomlinson lewis 2013-05-14 20-00.jpg
[edit]
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: no education use thinkable; Commons is no place for private drawing hobbies High Contrast (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Photograph of the aftermath of the fire at the Jayplas recycling site in Smethwick, West Midlands taken 02-07-2013 2013-07-02 19-41.jpg
[edit]
Same image here with a different author (see the watermark) High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
copyvio from a website Mjrmtg (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Weissbier (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not own work "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Trijnsteltalk 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Historie - Medewerkers Gouwenaar (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused, only differs from File:Multicast L2.png by an in-image text-caption that inhibits reuse. DMacks (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not made by "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not made by "Historie medewerkers" and not made in 2013 Gouwenaar (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Aviones
[edit]- File:AEMOE2.jpg
- File:AEC3G.jpg
- File:AEC3Carola.jpg
- File:Ae.C.4.jpg
- File:Ae. M.O.1.jpg
- File:Ae. M.B.2 BOMBI.jpg
- File:AE. M. S. 1.jpg
- File:AE. M. OE. 2.jpg
- File:AE. DEWOITINE D 21.jpg
- File:AE. C.3-G.jpg
- File:AE. C.1 TRIPLAZA.jpg
- File:AE. BRISTOL F.2B.jpg
- File:AE. AVRO K-504 GOSPORT.jpg
All those files give the upload date as date, instead of the original date (needed to clarify if copyrights have expired or not). The web page listed is only a generic page portal, with no info on the precise location of those photos --Cambalachero (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
copied and cropped from the first image on the header of http://www.nagarseva.in/ Vigyani (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think there can be any doubt that it is the same image. The people all appear in the same positions. The image here, however, is far larger than the one cited or, indeed, than any other version likely to be found on the web. It seems to me much more likely that the www.nagarseva.in came from our user than the other way around. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- see higher resolution source here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=82682941 . on this link it was uploaded in July 2011, whereas this user uploaded image on commons in Dec 2012. Infact this link appears to be source of many of his files. --Vigyani (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please look more carefully at the facts. The Skyscraper City image is larger than the first one you cited, but at 1024 x 683 it is still significantly smaller than the subject image. It is not possible for the Commons image to have been made from the SC image -- there is not enough data to upsample that far and end up with the results we see. All of the evidence so far points to the Commons image being legitimate "own work", with the other appearances on the web either taken from here or, given the dates, uploaded both places by the author. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Jim FASTILY 07:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The hint to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=81753050&postcount=109 is absolutely important. The publication there is from 2011. The file there is posted on a filehosting service, this means it is a copy of a third source. The filehosting service is http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6350/5935057940197bcf5835b.jpg. The filename 5935057940197bcf5835b is the important hint, its a flickr filename. The file id 5935057940 leads to http://www.flickr.com/photos/reehe/5935057940/. The file is stolen from flickr. Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please also note, that the camera EXIF on Commons is manipulated. The people in the photo are a clear evidence that this are the same photos. The camera EXIF on Commons reads FinePix F660EXR dated 17:08, 23 December 2012, thats impossible because the photo is published in 2011 already and flickr gives us the true EXIF. Also the EXIF of File:Biskoman Bhawan Patna.jpg is manipulated to FinePix F660EXR and date 04:47, 20 January 2012, but the original - identifiable by the light reflections in the swimming pool and every single leaf of the many trees - is published 2008. The conclusion is, that content included by Shivamsetu is systematically manipulated. --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I checked on Flickr and the actual data of the photograph is 27 February 2011. Thus the EXIF data of the photo uploaded here have been manipulated. Also issuing a warning to the uploader. Next copyvio will involve undefinite ban. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't see much wrong with it conceptually, though the image quality is somewhat low. It would be better as an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- i want to delete it because i'm leaving from this place only .GhiathArodaki (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can certainly request deletion as the original uploader, but we don't always automatically delete the file just for that reason. Whether or not the file has any realistic usefulness is also a relevant factor... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- We've been all through this before, here and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Levant Map.png. You can request deletion as original uploader, but we don't always automatically grant it on that basis only... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted screen is a major central portion of the image so de minimis does not apply. ←fetchcomms 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of unfree software. Stefan4 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Let my upload page be blank , no need for those pictures GhiathArodaki (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I overwrote your uploads with mine. Your upload page is clear now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks , as people here when have a dispute doesn't want you to upload an image anymore so they delete it .GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy keep: no valid reason McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) And with same reason:
- File:Flag Map Of Kingdom Of Syria.png
- File:Syrianunited.png
- File:Syrianflag(1932-1946).png
- File:SyrianMaysolonbattleflag.png
- File:French mandate flags map.png
- File:SyrianFlag(1920-1932).png
- File:Flag Syrian Map.jpg
- File:SyrianFlagHistory.png
- File:Syrianunited2.png
- File:French mandate flag map on all of syria.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Comment Please have a look at Commons:License revocation. --McZusatz (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those images are mine and my work , i don't want them to be published , i want to leave from here and i'm not going to let my work be under the hand of the users in this wiki.GhiathArodaki (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is no valid reason for deletion. Did you read the essay I linked to? --McZusatz (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes i have read , but i don't want them to be here , they are my work and my pictures , and i'm going to leave .GhiathArodaki (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is no valid reason for deletion. Did you read the essay I linked to? --McZusatz (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those images are mine and my work , i don't want them to be published , i want to leave from here and i'm not going to let my work be under the hand of the users in this wiki.GhiathArodaki (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion given. --Leyo 21:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: still no valid reason for deletion McZusatz (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- We've already been all through this above. You can request deletion as the original uploader, but we don't always automatically grant it based on that reason alone. Meanwhile, it's usually considered poor form to immediately re-open an unsuccessful deletion nomination unless new information has been brought to light, or the situation with respect to the image has substantially changed. P.S. Your multiple-file deletion nomination above was technically ill-formed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Not many rappers hit the scene as fully primed and ready like Omar Beamer- Born in Cleveland ,Ohio ,raised in Memphis ,Tennessee, and exposed to a vast array of American cities and neighborhoods, Omar's work is filled w 2013-06-23 11-28.jpg
[edit]
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No proof that it is in public domain in Ireland. Photographer may have died after 1937. --Superm401 - Talk 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. (Or Keep and re-tag) Reason given by uploader is actually based on general PD principals, rather than PD-Ireland specifically. Reason provided is that the work was "created and first published before January 1, 1923". Which is satisfied. So, rather than deleting, an alternative tag might be applied. (FYI - While no author name [and therefore date of death] is confirmed, picture likely does satisfy PD-Ireland as it has provided the source for numerous deriviative works (per uploader) which are now in the Public Domain in Ireland, including: Portrait in parliament buildings, book covers, stamps, video sleeves and all sorts.) Guliolopez 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Commons policy is that {{PD-1923}} can only be used if the work is public domain in the source country. Again, you have provided no evidence that this is public domain in Ireland. It doesn't matter how many portraits or stamps it's on; the only issue under Irish law is the date of the author's death. Superm401 - Talk 10:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there's no such thing as "general PD principles". Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. OK. Firstly, please don't put "burden of proof" on me. I didn't upload the image or transwiki it. I'm only trying to help (not least because the image is used on 72 pages in 38 projects). Anyway, maybe I wasn't very clear when I mentioned "general PD principals", but I wasn't trying to invent or refer to a specific term. All I meant was that the reason provided in the summary relates to copyright expiration under PD ("The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923"), but the tag provided relates to another PD assertion. ("Author died before 1937") And so maybe the uploader (or transwiki-er) might simply have been confused. That's all I was saying. (Hence my "retag" suggestion).
- Now, with regard to the comment that "the only issue under Irish law is the date of the author's death". As you note, there is no confirmation as to who the author is, and therefore can be no definitive assertion that he is dead (or died before 1937). HOWEVER, this does not automatically make it "not PD". Under Irish Copyright law, where the author is "unknown, anonymous or pseudonymous", the copyright "expires 70 years after the date on which the work is first lawfully made available to the public." So, the fact that the author is definitively not known may make it still OK for inclusion here. Also, with relation to "just because it's on stamps and in the government archives doesn't make it PD" is also not necessarily true. I believe that the original photograph in question is now controlled by the National Library. (Hence it's use by the government on everything from stamps to official portraits to the parliament member's database). Again, Irish copyright law states that items in the "public record": "may be copied, and a copy may be supplied to any person, without infringement of copyright".
- Anyway, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I want to be), and I may be misinterpreting every last line of this, but I do think that the uploader and transwikier thought (in good faith) that the file was OK for inclusion. And I think it probably is too. And so (short of calling the National Library to confirm) I think it's OK to retain. (Though possibly with a different tag.) Guliolopez 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The fact that we don't know the author doesn't mean the author was actually anonymous. Most likely, he made his name known at the time of publication. Also note that the image can be used on some local projects under fair use. However, it doesn't appear appropriate for Commons. That doesn't mean it was bad faith to upload it. Finally, the burden of proof is primarily on the Commons uploader, who has been notified. Superm401 - Talk 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, there's no such thing as "general PD principles". Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If this photo is as widely-published as you say, and it's still not possible to say who took it, shouldn't it satisfy {{Anonymous-EU}}? --rimshottalk 14:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Possibly. Again, hence my suggestion to "re-tag" rather than simply delete. Guliolopez 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can you prove that "the author never disclosed his identity."? If not, Anonymous-EU is inapplicable. Superm401 - Talk 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. That's a rather tendentious interpretation of "if the author is unknown," Superm401. I'm sure the photo's author disclosed his identity to someone, but that information has seemingly been lost to history. For what it may be worth, this photo appears in three books in my library. One attributes it to "Irish state archive," the other two have no attribution at all. It's an iconic image of Collins that, as has been said, is in extremely wide use. At the very least, it's safe to say that any erstwhile copyright holders haven't defended their ownership of the image. Dppowell 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- {{Anonymous-EU}} clearly says "never disclosed his identity." What's "tendentious" is constantly inventing new reasons to keep a most likely non-free image. It doesn't matter if it's in every book in your library. There is no requirement that copyright be constantly enforced (unlike trademarks). Thus, the real issues are again:
- a. Did the author die before 1938 (unlikely)?
- b. Did he ever identify himself (likely)?
- Both of these relevant factors are against keeping the image. Superm401 - Talk 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't invented anything; your assertion that this is "a most likely non-free image" is founded on nothing but the absence of proof that it is free. You similarly assert, without evidence, that it's "unlikely" the author died before 1938 and that it's "likely" he never identified himself. Nobody in this discussion actually knows. I'm in the process of trying to ascertain the status of the image. In the meantime, I would ask that you be a little less legalistic (and a little more friendly) with editors who are, in good faith, trying to prevent holes from forming in all the Wikimedia project pages that use this image. We're not talking about an uploaded screenshot from a Pokemon video game. 71.230.50.191 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to log in. That was me. Dppowell 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith. However, proof that it is free is needed. Anonymous-EU is not valid proof. Superm401 - Talk 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't invented anything; your assertion that this is "a most likely non-free image" is founded on nothing but the absence of proof that it is free. You similarly assert, without evidence, that it's "unlikely" the author died before 1938 and that it's "likely" he never identified himself. Nobody in this discussion actually knows. I'm in the process of trying to ascertain the status of the image. In the meantime, I would ask that you be a little less legalistic (and a little more friendly) with editors who are, in good faith, trying to prevent holes from forming in all the Wikimedia project pages that use this image. We're not talking about an uploaded screenshot from a Pokemon video game. 71.230.50.191 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This image was used as the basis for a postage stamp in 1990, and the image was not under copyright then. Bardcom 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds was copyright expired in 1990? Superm401 - Talk 04:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Please resolve this problem soon and remove the image or keep it.
Kept. Lots of decent arguments to keep, with alternate tags. No votes for delete even, besides nom. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No information on publication on authorship, so copyright status cannot be determined —innotata 16:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep During the last deletion discussion on this image, I had a look into the dates, authorship, publishers and status of this image. In short:
- -Status in the US. This is unambiguous. The image was taken in August 1922 at Arthur Griffith's funeral and published the same year in Ireland. This is why the image is tagged (correctly) as PD-1923.
- -Status in source country (Ireland) This is less clear - but not to the extent that would suggest deletion. The image seems to have been published in Dublin in 1922 by "C & L Walsh Photographers" of Mount Street. While publisher or publication dates only come into play (in Irish/EU copyright law) when the author is unknown, this does seem to be the case. I say this because neither I (nor seemingly anyone else) can definitively confirm the photographer's name, date of death, etc. The photographer might have been one of Mssrs C or L Walsh, or possibly someone else entirely. As noted by several contributors to the original discussion, the image appears to be treated by various entities (in Ireland and the US) as if it is in the public domain in both jurisdictions. Print resellers certainly treat it as such in the US, and in Ireland lots of derivative works (from stamps to books to video sleeves) republish the image without attrib or nod to copyright status. As noted in the original discussion, while the image is widely published in Irish history books/etc, attribution is generally either non-existent or sketchily attribs to "Irish government archives". This to me suggests is should be tagged (and kept) under Anonymous-EU. (Or possibly PD-IrishGov
- In short: Recommend the deprecated PD-Ireland tag be replaced by Anonymous-EU and image kept. Guliolopez (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say "Walsh" refers to "C & L Walsh Photographers," so it's 70 years after publication for a corporate work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Michael Collins died on August 22, 1922 so this image is rightly tagged pd-1923. This DR should not have been filed. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it refers to photographer's death (or publication for corporate work) + 70 years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, you are correct. But this image is likely also pd-1923. As an image of Collins at Griffith's funeral on 16 August 1922, it would almost surely have been published before 1923. Why? It would have been one of the last pictures taken of Collins alive. Griffith's wikipedia article says that Griffith was buried 4 days after he died on 12 August 1922 (an event which Collins attended)--so this photo was taken on 16 August 1922. Collins died only 6 days later on 22 August 1922. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is, it must be PD in both the US and country of origin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Well the same picture Collins face is shown in the Irish parliament's web site here which suggests to me that its most likely in the public domain in Ireland. Do we tell the Irish government that they are committing a copyright violation next? I don't think so. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The photographer appears to be W. D. Hogan whose photos are mostly from the period 1920–1924. He was working independently, at times for the Irish Free State and at times for some newspapers including the Freeman's Journal and Cork Examiner. This particular photo came into the possession of Sean Sexton, a collector of historic photos (see this article), went later into the Hulton Deutsch collection, and is now in the collection of Getty Images (see this entry). Unfortunately, I was not able to research when W. D. Hogan died. He had an office in Dublin until 1935 in Henry Street but I found no records or informations about him afterwards. There was already a discussion about this point here. The National Library of Ireland has a collection of photos of him as well but provides no life span (see here). There was recently an exhibition of some of his photographs in Dublin (see here and here) but his lifespan is nowhere mentioned. @Leoboudv: What you refer to is the painting by Leo Whelan (1892–1956) which is apparently based on this photograph and which is now hanging in Dáil Éireann (Irish Parliament). --AFBorchert (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept - mainly per Guliolopez - Jcb (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is zero evidence this particular image is public domain. While the original black and white image was published prior to 1923, anyone with a vague knowledge of photography can see this image with vivid, vibrant colors is not a photograph from 1923 but a new image with copyright going to the person who created the color version. It is up to the person claiming this was done prior to 1923 to provide evidence this was the case. Acrostix (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore the 1923 date seems to apply to the USA only, with an additional template reading "This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years". So is there proof this template is even correct? Acrostix (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The original B&W work is probably still in copyright -- the fact that we do not know who the photographer was is not relevant to the question of whether the photographer was anonymous. In order for an image to qualify as anonymous, that must have been the photographer's intention. An image does not become PD just because we don't know who the photographer was.
- And, Acrostix is quite right. Colorization of an image creates a new copyright, so we need a license from whoever did the work here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The photographer (of the black and white photograph) appears to be well known, i.e. W. D. Hogan, see my comment in the previous discussion above. Unfortunately, I do not know when the photographer died. He was a professional photographer who was located in Henry Street, Dublin, in 1920–1935 and he is particularly famous for his historic photographs taken in 1920 to 1923. I was not able to find any information of him post 1935 and I have also no idea when he was born. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The colored version is a painting by Leo Whelan (1892–1956) which is hanging in the Dáil Éireann. This has to be deleted and can be undeleted in 2027. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- File split The black and white image revisions have been split in to Portrait_of_Micheál_Ó_Coileáin_in_black_and_white.jpg MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Splitting was good but it was unfortunately done in the wrong way. The original file should keep its original file name. I've swapped them, leaving the oil painting by Leo Whelan at the file name File:Portrait of Micheál Ó Coileáin by Leo Whelan.jpg and speedily deleted it and put it into the Undelete in 2027 category. I've also fixed the attributions of both files. Now, we should consider just the photograph by W. D. Hogan in this DR (still under its original filename). --AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment All what us concerns now after the split is the question when the photographer W. D. Hogan died to determine the copyright status of this photograph in its source country. To get wider input, I have posted this question at en-wp resource request. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- A direct request to the National Library of Ireland might get us his death date. I can't find it anywhere I search. Ww2censor (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that they have any information. They incorporate such data into their catalogue if present but they didn't include this yet for W. D. Hogan. I checked also the library catalogues of TCD and UCC without success. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- A direct request to the National Library of Ireland might get us his death date. I can't find it anywhere I search. Ww2censor (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral I can't address all the issues surrounding this, but colorizing a photo does not give you a new copyright, at least not in the US. The US Copyright Office had to hold an open discussion before it decided to accept colorized movies as copyrightable, and made it clear in their decision, [7] page 3, that "The Office concludes that some computer-colorized films may contain sufficient original authorship to justify registration, but our decision is a close, narrow one ... registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are no longer talking here about the oil painting. This has been splitted (see above) and identified as an oil painting by Leo Whelan (see also above). And, BTW, an oil painting, even if derived from a photograph, is surely eligible for copyright in its own right also according to US law. This is not a colored photograph but a painting. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per my experience, if the library has not posted the information about the author, they don't have it. It is a typical orphan work. It doesn't matter whether the colorisation gives a new copyright or not. --Eleassar (t/p) 05:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- That was not a colorisation but an oil painting by the artist Leo Whelan (see above) which is already deleted. We consider here currently just the photograph by W. D. Hogan and research regarding when he died are currently ongoing (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for having linked this discussion. In general, my comment still holds: as long as the photographer's year of death remains unknown, the file must be deleted. I hope though that it will be found by someone. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether the color version is in fact the painting by Leo Whelan, despite the previous discussion. http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/from-the-outside-in-the-international-dimension-to-the-irish-civil-war/ : The image on that page appears to the the Leo Whelan painting, whereas the color image here is a color version of the black and white photograph. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Scarce-Michael-Collins-Irish-Republican-Portrait-Leo-Whelan-/190670885987 - that painting is also of Michael Collins by Leo Whelan. Whelan's work tends to be of a similar style from what I can see, none of it resembles the image under discussion here. Acrostix (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. For comparison, [8], [9]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am not sure why we are still talking about the colourised version(s), as it is not in scope (any longer) of this discussion. And hence distracting. However, the two most common colourised versions are:
- A copy of the original B&W photo which was colourised and republished in 1922 by C & L Walsh photographers of Dublin (copyright status unclear as a derivative work the rights would belong to C & L Walsh photographers [or under Irish law whoever commissioned it]. Again, dates are unknown.)
- The Leo Whelan painting (also deriv from B&W photo) which hangs in Oireachtas portrait collection (copyright status more clear - not valid for Commons use)
- (And number of derivative works) Guliolopez (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
![[8]](http://www.historyireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/213.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://www.google.si/search?q=%22Portrait+of+Miche%C3%A1l+%C3%93+Coile%C3%A1in+by+Leo+Whelan.jpg%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=sl&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=QoQUUtGWDMfcsgaMn4DYDw&biw=1366&bih=600&sei=RIQUUsO9AZDJsga2u4DYBw#facrc=_&imgrc=p8lV4ihEohx5cM%3A%3BEMYI_GP6mJziXM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fthumb%252Fb%252Fb7%252FPortrait_of_Miche%2525C3%2525A1l_%2525C3%252593_Coile%2525C3%2525A1in.jpg%252F150px-Portrait_of_Miche%2525C3%2525A1l_%2525C3%252593_Coile%2525C3%2525A1in.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fja.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252F%2525E5%25259B%2525BD%2525E6%2525B0%252591%2525E3%252581%2525AE%2525E7%252588%2525B6%3B150%3B221){kind=link}
- Keep. For the same reasons I have stated umpteen times before:
- In the US, this image is unquestionably PD. For works published <1923, identity (of photographer, commisioner or publisher) or date of death (of any of these parties) doesn't come into it. It's therefore PD in the US.
- In Ireland/EU, the status is less clear. But not to the extent that would neccesitate deletion. In Ireland/EU the status depends on photographer and his/her date of death. But even here, I recon "keep", because if the photographer was:
- anonymous (never disclosed), then Anonymous-EU applies and is met (date of pub + 70 years)
- unknown (disclosed by forgotten), then Irish law applies and is met (if "unknown, anonymous or pseudonymous" then rights expire at 70 years after date of pub)
- WD Hogan & he died <1938, then PD-Ireland is met (date of death + 75 years)
- WD Hogan & he died >1938, then things are less clear. But I still recon it's safe to keep because the WD Hogan archive is now controlled by the National Library of Ireland. As the NLI is a state body, this makes this image an "artefact of public record", and Irish law provides that items in the "public record": "may be copied, and a copy may be supplied to any person, without infringement of copyright". In fact, the NLI has expressly released many of Hogan's images (including several relating to Collins) under PD Commons licences. I have no reason to believe the same shouldn't apply here (The NLI doesn't have to state it's PD for it to be PD - if it's public record then it's already PD).
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Mulcahy_and_his_wife_Josephine.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(7541615018).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- In short: keep (the original B&W photo). And let's give this a break for a few more years this time :) Guliolopez (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Again, this is neither anonymous nor unknown. It is well established that this photograph was taken by W. D. Hogan. Ireland has pma 70, hence it is in the public domain when we know that Hogan died in 1942 or earlier. We are currently researching this. One possible candidate had the life span 1892–1951 but this needs some further investigation. Even if Hogan died after 1943 it would be good know when we can restore this photograph. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ad Guliolopez: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." Just assuming it per 'similar stuff exists' is not appropriate evidence. Where have you got the information that the image is controlled by the NLI? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The original of this photograph does not belong to the NLI but came first into the possession of Sean Sexton, a collector of historic photos, went later into the Hulton Deutsch collection, and is now in the collection of Getty Images. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- In short: keep (the original B&W photo). And let's give this a break for a few more years this time :) Guliolopez (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The NLI's Hogan collection contains this photograph of Hogan and (presumably) family members; it's dated circa 1947. (There is another dated 1942; the rest of the collection is much earlier.) This is not a conclusive date, but it strongly suggests he was still alive by the mid-1940s, which would - unfortunately - put his work just outside the life+70 boundary. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Per com:PCP (c)-status unclear. Can be restored if someone digs up hard evidence. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This is not sourced and is purely POV. The uploader has chosen to leave and we have no place for this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks sourced to me, both in terms of the author ("own work") and the origin of the design (http://www.discover-syria.com/bank/6137). The problem is that the image bears very little resemblance to the flag shown in the reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's purely POV by this uploader to claim the French flag formed a canton when the source shows it as a finial. The uploader has previously tried to disparage the former flags of Syria by claiming they were forced upon Syria by French colonialism. It doesn't belong here for those reasons. Fry1989 eh? 00:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave from here and i want my files to be deleted . GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete the file i don't want it , this is unhistorical or political thing i don't want it this is out of scope GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as not educational. Tucoxn (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Medals in Category:Karl Goetz
[edit]de:Karl Goetz died in 1950, so those medals or coins aren't in the PD until 2021.
- File:Médaille Lusitania AV.jpg
- File:Médaille Lusitania RV.jpg
- File:Rupertus 25 pfennig.png
- File:Rupertus 50 pfennig.png
Rosenzweig τ 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Zarevski
[edit]- File:Sanfrancisco10.jpg
- File:Deathvalley11.jpg
- File:Sanfrancisco77.jpg
- File:Deathvalley.jpg
- File:Sanfrancisco555.jpg
- File:San Franzisko aquarell 1987 4.jpg
- File:Sanfrancisco55.jpg
- File:Newyork33.jpg
- File:San Franzisko aquarell 1987 7.jpg
- File:NewYorkAquarell1986 2.jpg
- File:NewYorkAquarell1986 1.jpg
- File:San Franzisko, Aquarell 1987 1.jpg
- File:Wolfgang Riedl.JPG
The files are Art from de:Wolfgang Riedl.Riedl has died in 1995. Its not own work. --217.246.200.150 21:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- File:Wolfgang Riedl.JPG is no art, but a photograph. It's not likely that Riedl made the photo of him himself. But because of the other mistakes (the date was also wrong, it was the upload date, but not at all the date the photo has been taken), it's also likely that the uploader isn't the photographer either. So it's better to delete all files, because of those mistakes. The dates seem all to be wrong, because these are the upload dates, but not the dates on which the aquarells have been made. It could only be that the uploader could be a wife, a son or daughter who has the rights of the paintings now after the death. But then the author had to be another, but not the uploader. So date and author and also source (can't be own work) are definitely wrong in every of the files, and I think the license is also. Speedy delete all, copyvio. The files aren't in the public domain either. If a wife, son or daughter wants to upload the paintings under a free license, it should be done in another way. They could contact the support team for questions about that. --Typokorrektör (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: All these files need a documented release through OTRS. However, the article about Wolfgang Riedl was meanwhile deleted at de-wp as the notability of the artist was questioned. Hence, these uploads also appear to be out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 10thstreetjungle (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:For mi 4s 2013-08-17 01-43.jpg
- File:Munch time 2013-08-17 01-42.jpg
- File:Don boy 2013-08-17 01-42.jpg
- File:Don girls 2013-08-17 01-40.jpg
- File:Don girl 2013-08-17 01-40.jpg
- File:DonBoys 2013-08-17 01-38.jpg
- File:Don girls msDontriss 2013-08-17 01-29.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 1fbghdtjr0108 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like promo photo, not own work. Could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AnnieBruceWalther (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo materials. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Hovedelementerne i gevinstrealisering.png
- File:Klart defineret vision, mål og gevinster giver klar retning.png
- File:Kritiske faktorer for gevinstrealisering.png
- File:Gevinstreviewprocessen.png
- File:Håndtering af gevinstrealisering.png
- File:Billede2.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Createaccount (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:276950gente2.jpg = magazine cover from 1982, File:BuenosAires4-april-1982.png photo scan from magazine "Gente", dated with 1982, File:Fidel-castro-chile-y-allende-una-mirada-al-proceso-revoluc MLA-O-100482426 8430.jpg, photo dated with 11.1971, File:Atlanta-golpe-en-chile-allende-y-prats MLA-O-59120114 6984.jpg, photo dated with 06.1973, File:Quien-tiene-razon-en-el-beagle-argentina-o-chile-osalinas MLA-O-141683795 7071.jpg, book cover, dated with 1981 (eventually PD by other reason) File:Nicanor Costa Mendez and Fidel Castro in La Habana.png, photo dated with 06.1982. All files tagged with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, however, they were not yet in the public domain in Argentina on the URAA date (1 January 1996), so they are copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. Commons requires files to be free in both the United States and in the source country.
- File:BuenosAires4-april-1982.png
- File:Nicanor Costa Mendez and Fidel Castro in La Habana.png
- File:276950gente2.jpg
- File:Quien-tiene-razon-en-el-beagle-argentina-o-chile-osalinas MLA-O-141683795 7071.jpg
- File:Atlanta-golpe-en-chile-allende-y-prats MLA-O-59120114 6984.jpg
- File:Fidel-castro-chile-y-allende-una-mirada-al-proceso-revoluc MLA-O-100482426 8430.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Gunnex,
- thanks for the clean up, but ...
- The {{PD-AR-Photo}} states:
- This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7
- I don't see there any mention of a URAA date.
- You argued that Commons requires files to be free in both the United States and in the source country.
- But the File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E10868,_BDM_in_der_Landwirtschaft.jpg isn't free in the USA, at least there is no tag about in the page. And the file is disponible with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}.
- So, if we delete the {{PD-AR-Photo}} then, please, first delete the fotos of the Bundesarchiv with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} or let it be.
- --Createaccount 12:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF/different camears.
- File:DecorLVK 2858.JPG
- File:VorsthoppiusVI n.jpg
- File:Labamba 5210-w1024-h683.jpg
- File:LVKlogo2013 2131.jpg
- File:Zjwamervlag 2130.jpg
- File:Mertsjpektakel2013.JPG
- File:Hopsjlokkers2012.jpg
- File:Hopsjlokkers.jpg
- File:Mertspektakel 2013.JPG
- File:Groepsfoto 2012 Vastelaovesvereniging de Hopsjlokkers.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Meal image could be found on Flickr with non-commercial license.
- File:Asiana Airlines second hangar at Incheon airport.jpg
- File:Asiana Airlines business class meal.jpg
- File:Asiana Airlines Crew Uniforms.jpg
- File:ASIANA HQ.png
- File:Asiana Airlines travel class meal (Korean Style).JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Papodactilo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shubh Samachar (talk · contribs)
[edit]We need written permissions from the copyright holder(s) to keep these files at Commons. See Commons:OTRS for details.
El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheJoJoFredo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of album covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:LGTI cover.png
- File:H cover.png
- File:JHF cover.png
- File:Jophen cover.png
- File:TheJojofredo youtube photo.jpg
- File:The Best of The Rest CD cover.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by طارق محمد الفقيه (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Bushra almaqtari 5.jpg
- File:Bushra almaqtari 6.jpg
- File:Bushra-Al-Maqtari-Mai-Nasiri.jpg
- File:Bushra almaqtari.jpg
- File:Bushra-Al-Maqtari.jpg
- File:Bushra al-Maqtri.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused (except in userspace archives, where it could be easily replaced by...) "dup" of File:Propan Lewis.svg DMacks (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom High Contrast (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Svg version available Perumalism Chat 10:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
An image from the mid-1950s simply cannot be PD-old with 70 years pma. Not in 2013. Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded it, as it seems the picture was from the twenties, but someone changed the date to 1950's. To me, that seems rather late, the picture looks older, but for now I have no evidence yet. Paul2 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The site you took it from has no date at all for the photo. You should never upload an image with pure guesswork as to its date of origin, at least not an image from the 20th century. --Rosenzweig τ 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of that, and I thought there was more info about this picture, but I can't remember anymore and apparently there isn't at that page either. Paul2 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The site you took it from has no date at all for the photo. You should never upload an image with pure guesswork as to its date of origin, at least not an image from the 20th century. --Rosenzweig τ 23:51, 19 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 08:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Image likely copied from a forum[10]. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The image looks like it's taken from Israel Railways's site - comapre to http://www.rail.co.il/HE/Tickets/Map/Pages/map.aspx. And being an old map (it's only current use is in the Hebrew article on color blindness), there's probably no reason to make a free version of it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Unusd essential dupe of File:Propane-2D-Skeletal.svg DMacks (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The margin is really different (wide margin vs. virtually no margin). There might be situations where the latter may favored. --Leyo 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Weil das Bild anstößig ist und der Abgebildete damit n icht einverstanden ist. Aris07 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 08:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Derivative work of Windows 2000. Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This is no derivative creative work but only a photograph taken in the public. --Carbenium (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? This is obviously a derivative work as it is a photo of a different work (Windows 2000). --Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- → Commons:Freedom of panorama. This photo was obviously taken in Switzerland – so, I'll remove the deletion request. Besides, if you wanted to delete all "derivative works", such as photos of cars, make-logos etc. pp., you could nearly close down wikimedia commons… --Carbenium (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the Windows 2000 startup screen was permanently installed? It is in my opinion much more likely that the startup process continued as scheduled and that the startup screen only was shown for a few seconds. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- → Commons:Freedom of panorama. This photo was obviously taken in Switzerland – so, I'll remove the deletion request. Besides, if you wanted to delete all "derivative works", such as photos of cars, make-logos etc. pp., you could nearly close down wikimedia commons… --Carbenium (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? This is obviously a derivative work as it is a photo of a different work (Windows 2000). --Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: cropped out non-free elements FASTILY 08:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15561659860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15746509615).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 34
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Arcs de la Mosquée Hassan-II.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - Grande Mosquée Hassan II.jpg
- File:Mosque Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco, 摩洺哥.jpg
- File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg
- File:Mosquée Hassan II -2.jpg
- File:Mustapha ennaimi - 23768064204.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg is previously published and would need a separate VRT permission from the photographer even if we obtained a general permission for the mosque. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 35
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Casablanca, Morocco (51256636929).jpg
- File:الدار البيضاء مسجد الحسن الثاني.jpg
- File:جامع الحسن الثاني.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Subject (brockton mckinney) would like the picture removed Comicworld (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Загружена новая версия файла.Данная версия не качественная,и подлежит удалению. Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Загружена новая версия файла.Данная версия не качественная,и подлежит удалению. Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Загружена новая версия файла.Данная версия не качественная,и подлежит удалению. Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, missing EXIF. Alex (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- а что в этой фотографии не так? она большого размера, явно же человека работа, я другую такую не нашел в интернете.--Kodru (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Добавлю, данная фотография очень важна для статьи о ФК "Шериф"--Kodru (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Это моя работа, если вы найдете еще где-то такую же фотографию и такого же размера, то укажите...То что не видно данных о фотоаппарате не означает что я не был на матче и не фотографировал. Честно, лишь бы придраться, хотя бы на разрешение посмотрели. Могу даже сказать когда фотографировал, на Суперкубке Молдовы в Тирасполе, играли Шериф против Тирасполя.--Eurasian PMR (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Если Вы не знали, то фотошопом можно удалять EXIF данные...Я их удаляю всегда по работе...Еще раз повторю, посмотрите хотя бы на разрешение фотографии.--Eurasian PMR (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons FASTILY 20:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted as it was created in 1991 (see en:Flag_of_the_Brussels-Capital_Region and in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Belgium it states that copyright expires after 70 years) Werieth (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Does not mention the rules for copyright regarding works of the State. Fry1989 eh? 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the copyright law that even mentions works of the government. Until such a thing is found, we must delete this file. There are also other files using this flag, so once we figure out what is going on with this DR, then we can proceed with the others. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, this file has massive use, we can't delete it on circumstantial evidence. Fry1989 eh? 05:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide solid evidence that this file is in fact released under a free license? I cannot find anything in regards to the Belgium government having special free licensing of their documents. Until such providence is provided this file should be treated just like any other work created in that country. pma+70 years. Which assuming the creator dropped dead the same day he created this, this wouldn't be until 2061 that copyright expired. Just because a copyright issue as gone unnoticed for a prolonged period isn't a valid reason to ignore it now. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I really do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. As far as I'm concerned, we can not delete this under any circumstances until it is solidly proven it's still copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that it isnt copyrighted? This was created in 1991, thus under Belgium law it will be under copyright it at least 2061. (assuming the author died the same day it was created). Can you provide any evidence supporting the lack of copyright? Werieth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- And there is no proof it is either, which is my point. We do not know what Beglian law is regarding works of the State, and until we do there is no reason to use such a blanket statement on copyright law which in all probability is wrong. Fry1989 eh? 01:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do we know if this file is the original work of or made for the Brussels government or is it an interpretation of it? If it is an interpretation does that change anything? File:Flag of the French Community Commission.svg and File:Flag of the Flemish Community Commission.svg should be treated the same way since they use it. --moyogo (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- If that helps: the original design was published as an ordonnantie/ordonnance proposal http://www.weblex.irisnet.be/data/crb/doc/1990-91/100108/IMAGES.PDF on 1991-02-27 and was passed as ordonnantie/ordonnance on 1991-05-16 and published on the 1991-05-22 in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge [11]/[12]. I'm not sure what is the copyright status of these legal documents. --moyogo (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just did some Googleing and according to belgium.be:
- And there is no proof it is either, which is my point. We do not know what Beglian law is regarding works of the State, and until we do there is no reason to use such a blanket statement on copyright law which in all probability is wrong. Fry1989 eh? 01:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that it isnt copyrighted? This was created in 1991, thus under Belgium law it will be under copyright it at least 2061. (assuming the author died the same day it was created). Can you provide any evidence supporting the lack of copyright? Werieth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I really do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. As far as I'm concerned, we can not delete this under any circumstances until it is solidly proven it's still copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide solid evidence that this file is in fact released under a free license? I cannot find anything in regards to the Belgium government having special free licensing of their documents. Until such providence is provided this file should be treated just like any other work created in that country. pma+70 years. Which assuming the creator dropped dead the same day he created this, this wouldn't be until 2061 that copyright expired. Just because a copyright issue as gone unnoticed for a prolonged period isn't a valid reason to ignore it now. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, this file has massive use, we can't delete it on circumstantial evidence. Fry1989 eh? 05:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the copyright law that even mentions works of the government. Until such a thing is found, we must delete this file. There are also other files using this flag, so once we figure out what is going on with this DR, then we can proceed with the others. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless stated otherwise, the information provided on or via the portal site www.belgium.be is not subject to copyright law. The information is available free of charge for personal use only, providing that the source is quoted. In cases where prior authorisation is needed for the use or reproduction of certain information, the restrictions on usage are explicitly stated. The use and reproduction of multimedia information (in particular images, sounds and software applications) are always subject to prior approval.
The federal government and/or others retain all the intellectual property rights over the portal site www.belgium.be. Some software applications and graphics which can be accessed on or via the portal site are supplied by third parties and may be protected by copyright, which means that the use and reproduction of these items are restricted and require prior authorisation from the owner of the copyright.
- (my bolding) Which means that the image is fully under copyright. So please check your facts and stop commenting on discussions where you dont know the facts. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth, what you quote refers to images used on belgium.be (the Belgian federal government website). Do we know if that applies to laws published in the Belgish Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge, considering the original flag was published and adopted in a law? --moyogo (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would assume so as it appears the standard practice for the Belgian government to copyright what they produce. Werieth (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Assumptions do not make policy. Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth, this is not obvious. The flags in question were published as law (whether on paper or PDF files). It can be considered to be information [...] not subject to copyright law and not as multimedia which would require prior approval. Especially if one considers these SVG files are interpretations of what the law describes (with is not subject to copyright law) and not as direct copies of multimedia published on the Belgian government websites (copyrighted multimedia). --moyogo (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Assumptions do not make policy. Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would assume so as it appears the standard practice for the Belgian government to copyright what they produce. Werieth (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth, what you quote refers to images used on belgium.be (the Belgian federal government website). Do we know if that applies to laws published in the Belgish Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge, considering the original flag was published and adopted in a law? --moyogo (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- (my bolding) Which means that the image is fully under copyright. So please check your facts and stop commenting on discussions where you dont know the facts. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Article 8, Section 2, "There is no copyright on official government acts". Since this flag is described in an official government act, which acts like a blazon, this rendition of it (which is freely licensed by its creator) is also not subject to copyright.
I need to remind Fry, that while I completely agree with him that we should be very careful when deleting widely used files, the burden of proof lies the other way. It is not necessary to prove that a copyright exists to delete a file -- we must delete any file if there is a "significant doubt" that it is free -- see COM:PRP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
