Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/08/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_(8192286598).jpg){kind=link}
![47 File:"Sans titre", 2011, plaque et éléments en inox, 70 x 70 x 70 cm (exposition "solutions techniques à des problèmes théoriques", Galerie Bertrand Grimont) Crédits Photo Aurélien Mole.jpg](#File:"Sans_titre",_2011,_plaque_et_éléments_en_inox,_70_x_70_x_70_cm_(exposition_"solutions_techniques_à_des_problèmes_théoriques",_Galerie_Bertrand_Grimont)_Crédits_Photo_Aurélien_Mole.jpg){kind=link}
![50 File:Vincent Mauger, "l'omniprésence des possibles", bacs en plastique découpés, 3,30 x 3,30 m, produite et présentées au Musée de l'hospice st Roch à Issoudun (France).jpg](#File:Vincent_Mauger,_"l'omniprésence_des_possibles",_bacs_en_plastique_découpés,_3,30_x_3,30_m,_produite_et_présentées_au_Musée_de_l'hospice_st_Roch_à_Issoudun_(France).jpg){kind=link}
![51 File:Vincent Mauger, "Le théorème des dictateurs", 5 m x 5 m, bois et métal, 2009 (Jardin des Tuileries, Fiac).jpg](#File:Vincent_Mauger,_"Le_théorème_des_dictateurs",_5_m_x_5_m,_bois_et_métal,_2009_(Jardin_des_Tuileries,_Fiac).jpg){kind=link}
![52 File:Vincent Mauger, "Sans titre", 2010, Musée d'art moderne de la ville de Paris.JPG](#File:Vincent_Mauger,_"Sans_titre",_2010,_Musée_d'art_moderne_de_la_ville_de_Paris.JPG){kind=link}
![53 File:Vincent Mauger, "The Undercroft", 2008, OSB wood panels, appromately 9 x 6 x17 m, produced and presented at Fabrica Gallery, Brighton.JPG](#File:Vincent_Mauger,_"The_Undercroft",_2008,_OSB_wood_panels,_appromately_9_x_6_x17_m,_produced_and_presented_at_Fabrica_Gallery,_Brighton.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![135 File:Edward Snowden "Xilografía".jpg](#File:Edward_Snowden_"Xilografía".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
i was trying to upload a picture to wikipedia but some how it got uploaded here Yumix1010 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Accident Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
_(8192286598).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(8192286598).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
w:Adel Abdessemed is still alive, and there is no FOP in France. russavia (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
_(8192286598).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleting as part of image upload cleanup russavia (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
_(8192286598).jpg){kind=link}
_(8192286598).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
_(8192286598).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nomination: recent sculpture w/o FOP in France. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
_(8192286598).jpg){kind=link}
I was trying to upload a picture to wikipedia but some how it uploaded here Yumix1010 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright © Gyokuhokan All Rights Reserved. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to upload a picture to wikipedia but some how it uploaded here Yumix1010 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright © Gyokuhokan All Rights Reserved. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Used to vandalize a Wikipedia article. Jujutacular (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment Probable copyright violation, related to: http://i.imgur.com/wqV8Z0M.png . Jujutacular (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, false license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
COM:PENIS BrightRaven (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, very poor quality orphan own penis snapshot -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope Taivo (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, by Denniss. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: --Krd 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
small unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Image of sock master Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't read russian, but this doesn't seem like pd-trival. CennoxX (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- For those who doesn't read Russian: this is a letter of recommendation issued by the authorities of an University the actress graduated from. It's not a “literary work” so I suppose {{Pd-text}} can fit. Sealle (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I also confirm that image is trivial - just facts are mentioned there, no literary work rubin16 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: low resolution, little EXIF data, looks like this was copied from the web. Mathonius (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Most likely grabbed from (example) http://hawtdogs.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/blonds-at-the-beach/ (05.2009, preview advice: no offensive/explicit content) = http://hawtdogs.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/blond_beach_5.jpg (last modified: 08.2009). Gunnex (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedily deleted: This image was already uploaded by the same user as File:Tim Hamilton.jpg on 11 September 2009 and subsequently speedily deleted on 20 September 2009. Hence, it can be speedied again, as it still appears to be a copyvio. This requires a documented permission through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
empty page Aftab1995 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as broken redirect. In such cases, a speedy deletion is recommended using the {{Speedydelete}} template, not a regular deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality penis picture. Momotaro (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Do we have photos of condoms in use? (Later…) Yes, we do. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Plenty of better images available, COM:PENIS russavia (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality penis picture. Momotaro (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(sorry for messing with the formatting) {vd} probable CopyVio - Watermark and MPEG artifacts are obvious. 217.255.190.87 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely copyvio, COM:PRP applies russavia (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ammar_khan/with/4340567422/ Proshob (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate smaller version of another image in the same GPS Satellite category and also incorrectly attributed to the uploader. Ericschrader (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down (and slightly cropped) duplicate. Incorrectly attributed, not used. Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a duplicate of File:JustinLong10TIFF.jpg except that the faces in the background distract a little bit more. CennoxX (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep given the files are now different. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)- Comment -- the two images are very similar, but they are not duplicates. Mr Long is in focus in both, but we can see that they guy over his left hand shoulder (our right) is out of focus in the other photo, and in focus in this photo. Is that a significant enough reason to keep both. For artistic reasons an end-user might want to choose among similar photos where the subject is in focus, but the background is/isn't in focus. Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as per Geo, although if kept the information about the two versions should be added to the other versions field in the image description so it is clear to users that the two versions exist and what the difference is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The Images are different enough to keep both.--CennoxX (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, missing EXIF.
Alex (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, missing EXIF.
- File:Teaching Dhamma by Aj.Acharawadee Wongsakon.jpg
- File:Walking Meditation Path.jpg
- File:Decho.jpg
Alex (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
File:I need your help im in luv wit this guy abd i tthink he is liein to me 2013-08-20 20-22.jpg
[edit]
Out of project scope - personal photo. Alex (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope Alex (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal file SamuelFreli (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
sdsfsagzeuty 202.40.137.200 02:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: No vaild reason given (frivolous DR by IP). This image seems to be properly licensed and tagged; its relevance and ontopicness cannot be evaluated una tantum (and yes — I think it is both notable and in scope). -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a magazine scan which describes the film —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this image was taken in the mirror universe of the one shown here. There may be trans-universe copyright concerns. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Also, (half) blurry. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that Philip Krejcarek licensed an image of himself freely on his flickr account. This could be a speedy candidate. Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
IMHO this very beautiful picture is a DW. Lymantria (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The flickr license is OK--which is why I passed it--but the artist just died in 2013 and so this artwork would be copyrighted still. Lymantria confirmed to me on his talkpage that it is a 3D sculpture--and not a generic artwork--and so Commons cannot keep this image unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I did not know when uploading it if it is OK to upload it; I just hoped it was, i.e. that its flickr license allowed it. However, if you think it would be a problem - I most definitely may not use its beauty as an argument. Виктор Јованоски (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a satelite image of Camp-Fouquereaux, taken from Google Maps. Thus it is copyrighted by Google Timtrent (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A very poor grab of a copyright logo. Out of scope for Commons, surely? Timtrent (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No description. Unclear, whether the photos are all taken by the uploader. 91.66.152.202 07:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded in 01.2009 locally at enwiki and later transferred to Commons. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Considering http://www.ladybugstallion.com/?id=9&story=38 (04.2008, credits: "Photo by: Eugene O'Neill / Coady Photo") = http://www.ladybugstallion.com/newsfiles/photos/fastprizezoom.jpg (lower res), permission needed. See also http://www.sallyharrison.com/?p=607 (© 2013 sallyharrison.com.) = http://www.sallyharrison.com/features/pix/2008/fastprizezoom.jpg (last modified: 2008, lower res). Obs.: At en:User talk:Gambrusky (original uploader) similar copyvio issues stored. Gunnex (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded in 01.2009 locally at enwiki and later transferred to Commons. Unlikely to be own work considering http://www.stallionesearch.com/info.asp?section=6&story=1451 (06.2006, credits: "Photos: By Scott Martinez", Copyright © 2013 StallioneSearch.Com - all rights reserved) = http://www.stallionesearch.com/newsfiles/photos/Ed_Burke_Mil_FDD_Dynasty.gif (montage, lower res, last modified: 2006) = permission needed. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:G R-Fast Prize Zoom-World Record-1.jpg. Obs.: At en:User talk:Gambrusky (original uploader) + User talk:Gambrusky similar copyvio issues stored. Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Poor scan of a logo. Surely this is out of scope for Commons? Timtrent (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not PD and just poor quality. Flickrworker (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a display board in the United Kingdom. In the UK, freedom of panorama only applies to 3D works of art, so this 2D image isn't covered. Nev1 (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible that this picture was published before 1923. Sabiha Gökçen is an adult in the picture. In 1923, she was 10. Atatürk met her only in 1925. Consequently, there is no reason to think this image is in the PD in the US or in Turkey. BrightRaven (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; dubious tag; image is lacking any info on actual date nor actual source (beyond unsourced reuse on a photo blog). (Some images from the later 1920s may be PD-US, but actual information on authorship/first publication is needed to make that determination, and an image taken in Turkey would be assumed to be under Turkish copyright law unless evidence of first publication elsewhere can be shown.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.152.202 09:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded in 01.2009 locally at enwiki and later transferred to Commons. Unlikely to be own work considering http://www.harasvistaverde.com.br/links/noticias/all_american.htm (most likely 2008 via "2008 ALL AMERICAN FUTURITY (G1) QUALIFIERS", credits: "PHOTO: AQHRJ" = American Quarter Horse Journal) = http://www.harasvistaverde.com.br/links/noticias/images/JessZoomin.jpg (lower res) = permission needed. Related: en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 10#File:G R-Iamasurebet-1.jpg (similar DR involving the same source) + Commons:Deletion requests/File:G R-Fast Prize Zoom-World Record-1.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:G R-FDD Dynasty Ed Burke Million-1.jpg. Obs.: At en:User talk:Gambrusky (original uploader) + User talk:Gambrusky similar copyvio issues stored. Gunnex (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If this picture was published in 1920 by a legal person, it would be in the PD, but there is no indication that it is actually the case. BrightRaven (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Architecture drawing by a non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
low quality, too small Rudko (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are other pictures like this witch weren't deleted. I am the creator so I'm not going to decide but I think it should be kept. Reception123 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: «Low quality, too small», yes, but in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. INeverCry 00:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work.
- File:Miembro de la Banda de Guerra.jpg
- File:Selección de Basquet de 1973.jpg
- File:Arquería en los pasillos coloniales del segundo nivel del Colegio..jpg
- File:Pintura tradicional en la segunda puerta del Colegio.jpg
- File:Promoción 1962.jpg
Alex (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, missing EXIF.
- File:Red Carpet Event LA Teen Choice Style Lounge on August 8, 2013.jpg
- File:Red Carpet Event LA Teen Choice Style Lounge on August 8, 2013 California.jpg
Alex (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
File:"Sans titre", 2011, plaque et éléments en inox, 70 x 70 x 70 cm (exposition "solutions techniques à des problèmes théoriques", Galerie Bertrand Grimont) Crédits Photo Aurélien Mole.jpg
[edit]_Cr%C3%A9dits_Photo_Aur%C3%A9lien_Mole.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cr%C3%A9dits_Photo_Aur%C3%A9lien_Mole.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation: Photograph of a scuplture at an exposition in France (Paris [1]), where there is no freedom of panorama (even if there was: this is indoors and probably not "public space"). Also Crédits Photo Aurélien Mole suggests that the uploader is not the photographer. El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the uploader's own work, copies of this file have been floating around the web for years (e.g. [2]). El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:H%26K-G36K.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Journal covers with probably copyrighted pictures on them. El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Vincent Mauger, "l'omniprésence des possibles", bacs en plastique découpés, 3,30 x 3,30 m, produite et présentées au Musée de l'hospice st Roch à Issoudun (France).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted sculpture, no Freedom of Panorama in France (this might even not qualify as public space). El Grafo (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Vincent Mauger, "Le théorème des dictateurs", 5 m x 5 m, bois et métal, 2009 (Jardin des Tuileries, Fiac).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Freedom of Panorama in France El Grafo (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. El Grafo (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Vincent Mauger, "The Undercroft", 2008, OSB wood panels, appromately 9 x 6 x17 m, produced and presented at Fabrica Gallery, Brighton.JPG
[edit]
While there is Freedom of Panorama in the UK, it is questionable whether this qualifies as "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public", since this seems to be a temporary exhibition. El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-old}} is not suitable for files where the author is not known. We need to know:
- who too took the photograph and when did he/she die?
- when was it taken?
- when and where was it published for the first time?
The more information the better. El Grafo (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless some actual info is presented. Image might be PD for some reason, but better info than "internet" and "unknown" would be needed to make a determination. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.152.202 12:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality penis picture. Momotaro (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Low-quality penis picture. Momotaro (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deletehardly any quality at all - blurry even at low resolution. 217.255.138.69 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably a self portrait, unused 91.66.152.202 13:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
YeanGonzalez (talk · contribs) uploaded a lot of copyvio pictures of buildings. I think this one is probably a copyvio too: no exif data, same subject as his other copyvios. BrightRaven (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No description. Probably self portrait of the uploader. 91.66.152.202 13:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
NOt the own work of the uploader, was released at IMDb before. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2710154752/nm2366012 CennoxX (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible a copyvio. The user uploaded some IMDb-pictures of Radio Silence Productions. The "Applemark" at the exif can be put in the image if Quicktime manipulates the image in some way, so I wouldn't trust the metadata. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2814030080/nm4761826 CennoxX (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The banners are not permanently in a public place situated objects, so they don't fall under Freedom of Panorama CennoxX (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a British work by someone who died in 1959. Still copyrighted in the UK. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeathPoorJoe.jpg 208.81.184.4 15:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.152.202 16:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The depicted obect does not look like own work and might be copyrighted. JuTa 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Low quality photo of a white vest. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope - personal photo.
Alex (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Non Standard Picture and no significance Proshob (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Non standard picture and no significance Proshob (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Self promotional, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Picture Proshob (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Picture resolution and no significance Proshob (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
some homepage picture, unknown persons, see description, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No significance and a less pixeled image Proshob (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Picture Proshob (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Picture quality Proshob (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Image of possibly copyrighted statue, see COM:FOP#Iran. where this statue is located and when it was made/installed? ■ MMXX talk 18:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unused; content type (mostly text) out of scope. Apparent screenshot of a wp infobox, but no such article seems to exist (cp. es:Universidad de Oriente (Cuba)); url http://www.medinew.scu.sld.cu/ is unavailable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gunnex as no license (no license). Well, there is a license. But its a derivate of a copyrighted film poster. JuTa 19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Pic Proshob (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal pic Proshob (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by globally blocked user; unused personal pic. Gorthian (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, self promotion DesiBoy101 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal file of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Tulsi 24x7 06:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
the depicted person was born 1880 and died 1959. Th image cannot be made 1880. The template {{PD-old}} becomes doubtfull. JuTa 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Contrary to the description, it does not depict Steve Buscemi. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Contrary to the filename and description, it does not depict Steve Carell. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like out of scope. JuTa 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Source doesn't work. (Godaddy website) doubt own work Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The source image File:Egerland1322-1806 RegbezEger1939-1945.gif has been deleted as copyright violation. JuTa 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The same applies to File:Egerland1322-1806 RegbezEger1938-45.gif. --JuTa 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The medals are less than 70 years old, so they are still obviously copyrighted. Stefan4 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
derivate. Who is the author of the drawings on this "poster"? id he/she agreed to the given license? JuTa 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible a copyvio. The other uploaded pictures from this user were copyvios, the exif of this picture is missing, the size looks like it's an internet image. CennoxX (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
TV screenshot. JuTa 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what the actual original source is, but GIS hits like this one lead me to believe it's not uploader-created as claimed. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
too bright Daniel the duke (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
too bright --Daniel the duke (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
there is no need to delete the photo, I'v already changed the brightness Daniel the duke (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete This is one of those blurry and low quality penis images uploaded day for day. As there are much better penis images already available there is no need for this low quality stuff. -- Ies (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the scenery model in the background is in the public domain. It is also not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 09:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how this photo is relevant. Please remove it. JimHolland (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with this one. Please remove. Ellen Rovesana
- Delete Pornography. Jahoe (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
COM:PENIS BrightRaven (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Uselessly bad quality own penis snapshot. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
deteted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
film poster Perumalism Chat 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Perumalism as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: film Poster Perumalism Chat 12:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Alan (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Album Proshob (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal Album Proshob (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The original source page File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics.svg has been deleted as copyight violation.
- File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics ar.png
- File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics fr.svg
- File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics it.svg
- File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics without text.svg
- File:Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics-heb.png
- File:Esquema de Mysticeti.jpg
- File:Mysticeti esquema es.svg
JuTa 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of copyvio = copyvio Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Unidentified subjects
[edit]IMHO out of scope, no educational use and/or use for any project.
- File:นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางกลับกรุงเทพ วันพฤหัสบดี ที่ 31 มีนาคม พ.ศ.2554 (Ph - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (2).jpg
- File:นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางกลับหลังตรวจเยี่ยมผู้ประสบสถานการณ - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete #2, but Keep #1. Not bad among Category:Raindrops on windows (and the only photo showing high velocity drops), and only one of two (so far!) in Category:Rain in Thailand. Its filename seems to read «Prime Minister traveled to Bangkok on Thursday, March 31, 2554», but the year must be wrong, as both Thai calendars are now in 2431 — must be a typo. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment How did you dig up that category?
Well, fine with me if you think it can be used somehow. The year is probably a typo, but it doesn't matter since a wrong date won't render the foto unusable. Thanks for adding the categories! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Kept #1, and deleted #2. This seems uncontroversial. Dschwen (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Albitahpaz (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused, no notability. out of scope
- File:Carcajada.jpg
- File:La mah chula.jpg
- File:Estudiando.jpg
- File:Maggui amigas.PNG
- File:Maggui Risas.PNG
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anshulksingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Books covers and movie screenshots. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Pinjar Novel Cover Page.jpg
- File:Still from film Pinjar.jpg
- File:Saqib Saleem in Bombay Talkies.jpg
- File:Kunal Kapoor in Hattrick.JPG
- File:Kunal Kapoor and Konkona Sen in Aaja Nachle.jpg
- File:Meenaxi A tale of 3 cities Soundtrack.jpg
- File:Industrial Biotechnology.jpg
- File:Biophysics and Biochemistry.jpg
- File:Enzyme Assays.jpg
- File:Microbial-fuel-cells--electricity-generation-from-waste-water.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anshulksingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anshulksingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying around 10 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from Flickr etc., including copyvios of files already uploaded at Commons by other users but claiming them as "own work") and considering also previous DRs (see above) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif = 5 different digicams) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Tushar Kalia.jpg
- File:Justin clynes.jpg
- File:Abhilasha Singh Mathuriya.jpg
- File:Statue of Maharana Pratap of Mewar at Udaipur.JPG
- File:Kanpur zoo 2.JPG
- File:Book Library, UIET Kanpur.jpg
- File:International hall, UIET Kanpur.jpg
- File:Huda City Center Metro Station.jpg
- File:River ganges near Kamalganj.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP Dschwen (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anshulksingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying again 1 (new) upload as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files (fresh uploaded) would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
Gunnex (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Busi Sriharsha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Considering 8 uploads = 6x copyvios (grabbed from Panoramio etc.) = per COM:PRP unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, inconsistent EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Commoneditor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Strongly doubt own work. BMA-website doesn't allow access to gallery without account. Can't verify source.
- File:65 BMA Long Course.jpg
- File:Battle Inoculation.jpg
- File:Rappelling.jpg
- File:Passing Out Parade.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and doubtful "own work" of "Sahra Lee" (how?). Some files (File:Sahra Lee vocalista.jpg + File:Sahra Lee singer...jpg + File:Sahra Lee vocalist...jpg + File:SAHRA LEE*.jpg + File:Sahra Lee,.jpg + File:Sahra Lee....jpg) watermarked with "Photography Abraham Garcia". Considering also User talk:Sahra Lee: the uploader was never able to obtain permissions...
- File:Sahra Lee ...jpg
- File:Sahra Lee singer*.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee ....jpg
- File:Sahra Lee vocalist...jpg
- File:Sahra Lee....jpg
- File:Sahra Lee,.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee vocalista.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee Zhero.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee singer...jpg
- File:Sahra Lee cantante....jpg
- File:Sahra Lee vocalist**.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee Vocalist*.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee Singer.jpg
- File:Sahra Lee Vocalist.jpg
- File:SAHRA LEE*.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vaibhavupadhyay (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images/self-promotional images
- File:Vaibhav upadhyay......jpg
- File:Vaibhavupadhyay...jpg
- File:Vaibhavupadhyay.jpg
- File:Vaibhav upadhyay.jpg
INeverCry 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Images by Matiloco3
[edit]- File:A cuevas ht.jpg
- File:818 news.jpg
- File:A Cuevas vt.jpg
- File:El-delantero-guarani-nelson-pipino-cuevas-interesa-al-psv-holandes.jpg
- File:Files.jpg
- File:N river plate idolos millonarios y ex river-3747673.jpg
- File:Pipinou.png
- File:Pipino-Cuevas-golazo-Racing OLEIMA20110507 0098 13.jpg
- File:River-cuevas.jpg
These are web-resolution images most likely taken from all over the web, not the user's own photographs. For example, El-delantero-guarani-nelson-pipino-cuevas-interesa-al-psv-holandes.jpg is from mediotiempo.com and even contains the site's watermark in the image. In an earlier DR an upload from the same user was also determined to be a press photo lifted from the web. Jafeluv (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Per [3] Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LogoColoColo.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Not a free logo. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The design in the logo makes it ineligible as a PD-text media. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There are several logos which illustrate that this image is eligible for PD-textlogo. For example, the Microsoft logo illustrates changes in coloring in a logo, insufficient to reach threshold of creativity. The logo for Nike similarly illustrates that a "swoosh" design is still considered a simple geometric shape. The Best Western logo, often used as a benchmark due to its official ruling by the Copyright Office as uncopyrightable, is significantly more complex than this logo yet still failed to demonstrate the necessary artistic and creative work to be eligible for copyright. I therefore stand by my assertion that this logo does not reach the threshold of originality and is not copyrightable. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's uploader's vote. And not that simple. India's National flag has been embedded in this image (with some changes in the colour). So, this is an artistic depiction. Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you looking at the same image I am? First, the flag of India is public domain and hosted here at Commons in any case. But this image does not "embed" it, it simply uses the same colors as the flag does. Making text green and orange does not make it pass the threshold of originality. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- a) the first issue is design, which I feel, does not comply with PD-Textlogo, b) the second one is, it is more an artistic depiction. When these two questions are answered, we can come to the third one: this is a logo of a political organization of India and Election Commission of India impose restrictions and regulations on their uses. One of those rules is, it can not be remixed without logo owner's and ECI's permission (this is done to stop abuse of logos). There are other rules too. Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Keep : Logo is Simple colored letters and it doesn't embed any National flag (Is there any ? ). 120.59.3.158 11:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (This is a single purpose account and/or no other edit other than this deletion discussion) Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep My opinion is that this logo, being simple shapes and letters, does not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Few days back i would have voted for keeping. But seems we don't do it this way anymore. Check Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Symbols of political parties in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think you may be confusing the election symbol (the broom) with the logo (this logo). -- Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- The logo is used by the party on their website where they write that all content is copyrighted. That was the reason for deletion of the broom symbol and so should be for this logo's deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to be under copyright. Fma12 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- But File:ECI-mango.png (which looked like this) was found worth copyrighting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- The logo is used by the party on their website where they write that all content is copyrighted. That was the reason for deletion of the broom symbol and so should be for this logo's deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In scope and text logo Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Before you vote please read, it is not a "simple logo" or "geometric shape" question. The current concerns are which you can try answering:
There are few more questions which are depending on these questions. |
This is second time nomination to have this file deleted. I am surprised that the first discussion was closed with kept.
I don't think editors have read arguments and comments here.
The file itself mentions that it is taken from their official website. And the website clearly mentions "everything there is copyrighted". In addition, there are ECI restrictions on using political logos. So, it is not in public domain in India.
One of primary requirements of Common PD media is— it should be PD both in US and its own country. The file is not in PD in India. Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Titodutta has already made this argument at the previous DR and it has already been rejected. Trademark/deceptive use restrictions are not copyright, and most of Commons' hosted logos are subject to them. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Tito Dutta, could you point out where you found the information that a simple text logo is not PD in India? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Hedwig in Washington, this is not only a simple logo question, it is a political party logo in the closed discussion above, I told, if design issues can be answered we can come to the third one: this is a logo of a political organization of India and Election Commission of India impose restrictions and regulations on their uses.. Good news is I have been reported at ANI, can you please see my reply at ANI, which has some incomplete details on restrictions and few links? (I am trying not to repeat/copy-paste my post from there.) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, please do not "quick delete" the file after seeing those ECI notifications. It does not matter who wins and who loses, we should attempt to find out the actual information.
(No one has told this in "keep: votes), but, there might be a possibility that this is not the political party's logo at all. In Wikipedia's discussion too few editors wanted to add the "broom" picture as logo. And if it so, and the current logo is just a part of their website designing, this can be kept. But, for that one needs to confirm it first and second, we need to check, can we ignore their website's license which states "all rights reserved". But, for now, the first issue is ECI. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, please do not "quick delete" the file after seeing those ECI notifications. It does not matter who wins and who loses, we should attempt to find out the actual information.
- Nope, won't do. At least I won't. I want to know for sure as well. Doesn't hurt to know if I was wrong the first time. But I don't think so. Here's my reply from the Admin noticeboard (Let's keep the discussion here):
- I read through the whole text(s) and can't find anything that relates to logos. My understanding is: the meaning of symbol in the texts is the symbol given/chosen by the party (e.g.:Elephant, Ladder, Mango, ...) and not the parties logos. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my last post I partially discussed this. Yes, that might be a possibility. But, difference between a logo and symbol is not clear in India, and that needs to be discussed, see this where they have used both logo and symbol. We should not rely on this website only. So, now, see this. BJP is one of the most important political parties of India, they are mentioning those lotus etc are their "logo. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Titodutta, I might be missing something, but it looks like those articles are discussing the symbols used. The light bulb, comb, etc., I think pretty clearly have enough artistic styling to pass threshold of originality (or at least have a high likelihood of that). Here, though, we're talking about a textual logo, not a stylized picture. Could you please explain how you're relating the two? Seraphimblade (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is just above where I told difference between logo and symbol is not clear. I also can not understand what is purpose of a logo. Further studies show there might be different types of symbols: a) political party symbol, b) election symbol etc. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Once again, I vote for keeping the file here so it is nothing but a text logo. Fma12 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator seems to be confusing a pictorial representation of the party (broom, mango, elephant, etc), with this simple text logo, that may be trademarked but in my opinion certainly falls below the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I completely agree with Diannaa. Fma12 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The w:Copyright Act, 1957 mostly seems to be a duplicate of the British w:Copyright Act 1956. Subsequent changes to the copyright laws in India and the UK mainly seem to have affected other areas such as the copyright terms. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that COM:TOO#India largely is identical to COM:TOO#UK. This would almost certainly be copyrightable in the United Kingdom. Compare with the EDGE logo case. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- The TOO-Ind is a critical issue which should be dealt separately and/or carefully, since many many more images here in Commons will be included in this list. I'll suggest to move all images to en.wiki and "do not move to Commons" tag (like Indian signatures). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, there is not any COM:TOO#India section, Commons has no information on TOO-Ind. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no consensus to delete under TOO. -FASTILY 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
انتخاب نام نادرست Sialkgraph (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Alan -- Steinsplitter (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded at a larger resolution under another name. Fry1989 eh? 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Under what name? Please use {{Duplicate}} fur such cases! Dschwen (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Dubious permission - photo of some artwork, and uploader has a history of copyvios. Furthermore, artwork is presumably from a not-taken-by-artist photo, which makes it a derivative work of probably non-free content. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
![21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/08/21#c-Mattbuck-2013-08-21T21:12:00.000Z-File:Edward_Snowden_"Xilografía".jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The work is a woodcut made by the user and photographed by him with a mobile phone, see the explanation. As he states here, the work is based on several public photos, so it's an original artwork, not a derivative work with many similar precedents on Commons from this project https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiArS/Gallery aimed to create original works to illustrate articles. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If I look at the uploader's upload log, it doesn't look like a history of copyvios - sure, some files especially near the beginning of their career were deleted, but in recent times not a lot of them. Given that the uploader has stated it's their "first graphical work", and we have no evidence that suggests otherwise, we should keep the file. At the same time, if the uploader reads this, I want to inform them that crosswiki inserting this into various language versions of the article on Edward Snowden, when it doesn't really illustrate that article well (though it's certainly useful to illustrate woodcutting!), is not a good idea. darkweasel94 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep La obra la realicé como está anteriormente mencionado aquí, basándome en varias fotografías que inicialmente se conocieron de Snowden y no necesariamente copiando, para así poder ilustrar el artículo sin más interés alguno que ese. Cuando lo terminé y colgué a wikipedia, me percaté que el artículo ya contaba con una fotografía de Snowden, sin embargo decidí colocarlo de todos modos porque ya han habido casos de fotografías, que al poco tiempo son eliminados por contar con el copyright por lo que de ser así el caso, mi ilustración permanecería para poder ilustrar el artículo. Hice esta imagen con dicha intensión desde mucho antes que la había iniciado, y no como un admirador de Snowden, pues ni siquiera contribuyo con su artículo, tampoco me inclino hacia ninguna idiología, todas mis contribuciones en wikipedia hasta ahora han sido de carácter neutral e informativo, y desde 2010 hasta ahora e aprendido mucho de sus políticas, por lo que soy consiente en absoluto de las imágenes que subo que deben ser propiamente mías. Esta imagen yo la libero al dominio publico con esa intensión, pues para eso realicé la obra y no reclamaré derechos de autor por el tallado de mi parte. Por último acabé de subir una versión de mayor calidad tomada desde un iPad mini y estaré realizando varias obras para ilustrar artículos variados, saludos.--LocoWiki (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily (no source since 8/20 Dschwen (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
![20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/08/21#c-Dschwen-2013-08-29T20:40:00.000Z-File:Edward_Snowden_"Xilografía".jpg){kind=link}
Do we need a JPG-duplicate of a perfectly fine PNG-map? El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: No, we don’t. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: This should have been speedied with {{Duplicate}}. Less work for everybody! Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, image tag right down, no usage Rudko (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The watermark issue can be fixed once User:Cropbot is back in action. Not being in use is not reason to delete. Out of scope, I'm not so sure -- it's a high quality image, and it could be used to illustrate educational content on the tree (once it's identified), or flora of Slovakia, etc. There's no overwhelming to delete. russavia (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I love it, except for the watermark. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per russavia and Zhuyifei1999 whym (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Is this couple wellknown in Italy? Please amend the description or delete. 91.66.152.202 12:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
filename has incorrect information Thomas Schanz (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
[[Category:{{subst:delete2|image=File:HP FOCUS CPU-Board 32Bit 18MHz 01.jpg]]
- What happen with this file? Why/how was it deleted so fast? Wrong filename is not a valid reason to delete, anyway, just as for a renaming instead. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: If it is still wrong propose a rename instead. Dschwen (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ctg4Rahat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo with a free liscence tag *PD-Textlogo?* Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Latebird as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the composition and lyrics are in the public domain (except from copyright as national symbols), this is not the case for both the musical performance and the video direcing/filming. There is no evidence that the uploader holds the necessary rights to place those in the public domain as well (even assuming he actually is the same person as the youtube uploader, which we have no evidence for either). Alan (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
préservation anonymat A vie saine (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ctg4Rahat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo with a free liscence tag *PD Texlogo?* Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume the iPod interface is copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Justass (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree please see "siri" page on english wikipedia too. --Saanvel (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Capture of copyrighted software Alan (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This picture is nearly the same picture like File:WillaHolland09TIFF.jpg, but in this newly uploaded picture, there is the watermark at the bottom. CennoxX (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Alan (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GeorgianJorjadze as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader requested
Converted to DR by me, as the file was uploaded 4 months ago and is in use on 1 project. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not the full version and is totally not needed. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason given is not valid -- the file is in use and appears to be useful. I do think that we might raise a question about its creation -- the uploader claims "own work", which is certainly possible, but it looks like it was copied from a book. I can;t find anything to back that up, though. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Alan (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by سعود الفارس (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files are out of scope, personal unused image. Please refer to the new files requirements.
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-31.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-30.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-29.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-28.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-27.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-26.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-25.png
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-24.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-23.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-21.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-20.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-19.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-18.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-17.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-16.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-15.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-14.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻮﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-13.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻭﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-12.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻭﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-11.jpeg
- File:ﺳﻌﻭﺩ الفارس 2013-08-20 06-10.jpeg
- File:سود 2013-08-20 06-09.jpeg
SamuelFreli (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- weak: I dunno, some are good examples of shemagh, and others are great examples of levantine homoerotic tackiness — although that maybe against the uploader’s intentions… -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS Alan (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is not the author of the photo and there is no proof that the author agreed with the CC-0 license. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The source file (http://wikimapia.org/13505291/Complexul-Sportiv-Raional) was uploaded to wikimapia by a user which is now blocked for uploading copyrighted material (see [4]). Razvan Socol (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The same file also appears in Panoramio, but has a later date than the one at Wikimapia. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Company logo that seems to fail Pd-shape and thus would be copyright violation The Banner (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Logo used in article on NL-Wiki [5]-> nominated for deletion. article-history suggests it will not pass the threshold, making the logo out of scope here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: for the reason given by the nominator, with no objection MBisanz talk 03:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The image here is not the same as the image in the source -- here he is looking to the side; the source photo is taken from a different angle and shows him looking directly at the container in his right hand —Eustress talk 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A careful look will show that this *is* the same photo, though the website now displays it differently. U of Pittsburgh website seems to have changed their format since this was uploaded in 2009 (archive.org does not have a copy of their old version). Image uploaded was as it was on the website in 2009. Note that image from same original photo is still there, but on current version of the website it is larger but softer resolution, and image is now split over two pages (see following page on website for right portion of the image). On the website the image is now cut in two pieces over two pages as it was apparently printed in the "Owl" yearbook in 1957. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
unused, no notability. out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP. http://drbettyernelson.webs.com/intro.htm Not out of scope. 91.66.152.202 09:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, she has a website. What makes here notable? There's no article about her and there's no description within the file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know about 30 versions of w:Amazing Grace. This is one of the better versions. Regards 91.66.152.202 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. What does that have to do with Nelson? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know about 30 versions of w:Amazing Grace. This is one of the better versions. Regards 91.66.152.202 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, she has a website. What makes here notable? There's no article about her and there's no description within the file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, seems un-notable FASTILY 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The stained glass windows were designed by Józef Mehoffer, who died in 1946. They are not in the PD yet. BrightRaven (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is FoP in Switzerland, but it seems that the interior of buildings is not covered. Moreover, I do not know if churches are considered as public buildings in Switzerland. BrightRaven (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
J'imagine que c'est ici qu'il me faut répondre... Ce vitrail étant placé dans l'église mentionnée, laquelle constitue un espace publique, je ne vois pas vraiment ce qu'il y a à redire...
- Oui c'est bien ici. Sans être un expert, il semblerait que la liberté de panorama suisse ne couvre pas l'intérieur des bâtiments, même publics. BrightRaven (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Je vous remercie de votre réponse et suis heureux d'avoir un correspondant francophone. Je trouve que c'est faire preuve d'un certain pharisaïsme que d'entrer dans de telles considérations... pardonnez ma franchise :-) Si vous effectuez quelques recherches sur Wikipedia Commons, vous trouverez quantité de photographies du même genre (intérieur d'un bâtiment public - notamment des églises - en Suisse) qui n'ont pas été inquiétées. D'autre part - sans être un expert, moi non plus - je dois avouer quelque surprise à entendre que la liberté de panorama pour ce genre de cliché n'est pas garantie en Suisse. Quelle est la source qui permet de le croire ?
- Si les autres vitraux ou intérieurs de bâtiment public sont anciens, ils ne posent aucun problème. Ici, la question se pose uniquement parce que Józef Mehoffer est mort il y a moins de 70 ans. Concernant les sources, voir COM:FOP#Switzerland. BrightRaven (talk) 06:56, 23 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 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of probably copyrighted software. El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What shall I do? I've asked twice and asking once again - how to be as white and clean as you are? Any grounds I have are in Russian. And what grounds you have for the removal? Okaraseva (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Okaraseva, thanks for being insistent: For some reason your e-mail got stuck in my spam filter and I didn't notice your message at the talk page – my bad, sorry for that. So let's try to figure this out. On Commons, we generally do not allow screenshots of commercial software for copyright reasons, unless we have a written permission from the copyright holder. While copyright of the work created with the software (the rainbow-colored diagram in the main window etc.) belongs to its creator (you?), the copyright of the user interface of the software belongs to the creator of the software. Then there are several default Windows icons used in the GUI, which are © Microsoft. However, the GUI is rather simple and may be below the threshold of originality and the icons may qualify as de minimis … As you can see, this is a rather tricky case and I'd like to hear some other opinions, so I'll leave a note at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
- @ admins:This DR may officially be closed soon, but given the circumstances I think it would be good to delay the decision a for little bit. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. De min and TOO. Screen shots should not be deleted always. This one is de min and below TOO. We may ask the WMF for their input since it will be their dime if taken to court. I think most like this one would just be a DCMA takedown without any cost. I doubt the software company would bother pursuing it further because of de min, TOO, and the fact that they don't own the Windows icons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Per w:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. the names and order of the menus don't appear to be copyrightable in the United States. This appears to be Russian software, so we also need to consider Russian law.
- There are several icons on the menus. I don't think that we can say that those are de minimis as the purpose of the image is to show the software. I also believe that several of them are above the threshold of originality. Therefore, presumably Delete. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, El Grafo, yes, I can see now it's going on. Okaraseva (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- One thing I forgot: In case you already have a permission from the creator of the software, please read Commons:OTRS for further instructions. That of course doesn't solve the issue of the Microsoft icons being used … --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Some of the icons (e.g. the common Microsoft ones in e.g. the tree views) don't add much meaning, and the value of the image wouldn't suffer much if they were blanked out, so those appear to be essentially de minimis. However some of the icons above the main window (like the integration sign) seem more critical to the meaning of the image, and are above the TOO, as is the Elcut/QuickField icon in the upper left corner, so I think this file should be deleted. BTW, I've tagged the related file File:Elcut ico.png as a copyvio, and will delete it after this DR closes unless someone beats me to it. --Avenue (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've read your input here and at File:Elcut ico.png for which I'm saying 'thank you' and I guess it's better to have you have this software creator's permission. How to prove that the creator is the creator I don't know but I'm not you and you'll write again I believe this system ticks. Both images are under correct licensing here - all the purpose of these talks are to show it. Well, let it be so. I do it. -- Okaraseva (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That was my comment - the previous one. --Okaraseva (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Somehow File:Elcut ico.png never lived till this discussion went to an end. Pity. --Okaraseva (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you do have permission from the creator/copyright owner, please read Commons:OTRS/ru for guidance on what to do (as El Grafo says above). We do not try to establish permissions in public Deletion request discussions. If valid permission is received through OTRS, the file(s) can easily be undeleted. --Avenue (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus seems to say that this is not DM and therefore cannot be kept on Commons. This could change however, if we have OTRS permission. If you are the uploader, please email OTRS FASTILY 08:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 20:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Also, File:Ajdovščina Srednja šola Veno Pilon (4983708687).jpg, File:Ajdovščina Srednja šola Veno Pilon (4984307220).jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Keep for 4983708687, architecture is DM. --Sporti (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It takes almost all the place in the photograph. You must be kidding... --Eleassar (t/p) 08:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Graffiti take almost all the place in the photograph. --Sporti (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is clear on the first sight that this is not true. By the way, I find your reasoning funny indeed: just draw some graffiti on a building and it's public domain, free to be photographed by anyone for any purpose. LOL! --Eleassar (t/p) 08:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 08:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a portrait, not a photo, so the license does not apply. This man died in 1831, photography would take at least two more decades to be introduced to Argentina. It may be in public domain, but we would need authors and date. Cambalachero (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Imho, a portrait of someone who died in 1831 can be considered as PD. I cannot imagine that someone who already painted in 1831 could still live in 1942 or even in 1912. So, I would use {{PD-old-100}}. BrightRaven (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- That rationale can work for photos, but not for portraits. Remember that a portrait of a historical man can be painted by anyone, at any time. Not all portraits are made with the subject posing for it, it may be made from other images of a man died long ago, or even by the artist's own imagination. That's why we need authors and date to keep the file. Cambalachero (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it is not impossible in theory, it is very unlikely in the present case given the style of the painting. BrightRaven (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- That rationale can work for photos, but not for portraits. Remember that a portrait of a historical man can be painted by anyone, at any time. Not all portraits are made with the subject posing for it, it may be made from other images of a man died long ago, or even by the artist's own imagination. That's why we need authors and date to keep the file. Cambalachero (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept: seems fine to me FASTILY 08:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Orders of Yugoslavia
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Order of the People's Hero.jpg: no evidence that the photograph (where it is a photograph) and/or the original work are in the public domain.
- File:Croix de commandeur de l’ordre de la couronne royale.JPG. I am the photographer (there is even indication of my camera) - je suis la photographe (il y a même les indication de mon appareil photo) --Chatsam (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is apparent, however there is no indication that the order itself would be pd. Per the Kingdom of Yugoslavia act, official works were protected for 50 years (pg. 277, §43), and in the copyright act of the Second Yugoslavia, orders were not listed among the copyright-free exceptions.[6] --Eleassar (t/p) 07:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- File:CrownV.jpg
- File:CrownVrev.jpg
- File:Driemaal Sint-Sava.jpg
- File:Ster van de Orde van de Joegoslavische Kroon.jpg
- File:YUG Order of the Crown BAR.png
Eleassar (t/p) 06:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Models of automobiles
[edit]Per [7]: no evidence that these models would be public domain.
- File:- 01 atomobile mania.jpg
Question: works on display in a museum, not private models that have been photographed without treatment of copyright (preferable to keep:open question in discussions)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs) - File:- 01 Manichino carrozzeria Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint.jpg Keep: no pertinent with [8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:01 campionario colori fiat panda.jpg Question: works on display in a museum, not private models that have been photographed without treatment of copyright (preferable to keep:open question in discussions)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:1-50 Scale.jpg
- File:3 - Barchetta Fiat (lavandino).jpg Keep: no pertinent with [9]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:600 Fiat modello carrozzeria.jpg Keep: no pertinent with [10]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:Camioneta. Hummer H2.JPG
- File:Campionario panda 2.jpg Question: works on display in a museum, not private models that have been photographed without treatment of copyright (preferable to keep:open question in discussions)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:Caro 2.JPG
- File:Carro de madera II.JPG
- File:Carro de madera III.JPG
- File:Carro de Madera.JPG
- File:Cast iron Northland Transportation model bus.jpg
- File:Cové6.jpg
- File:ErAZ-762b.jpg
- File:Moskvich 426 model 2.jpg
- File:Ford Delivery Truck - Grapette.jpg
- File:FranklinMintMetro.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 119 - Automobilia - Cadillac Models.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 120 - Automobilia - Diesel Electric Locomotive.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 120 - Automobilia - Refrigeration.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 120 - Automobilia - Truck Models.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 121 - Automobilia - Truck Models.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 122 - Automobilia - Truck Models.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 123 - Automobilia - Zora.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 124 - Automobilia - Zora.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 125 - Automobilia - Aviation.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 133 - Automobilia - Zora Arkus Duntov.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 134 - Automobilia - Zora.jpg
- File:IAA2007 2007-09-17 16-05-58 - Flickr - Axel Schwenke.jpg
- File:IAA2007 2007-09-17 16-06-00 - Flickr - Axel Schwenke.jpg
- File:IAA2007 2007-09-17 16-06-05 - Flickr - Axel Schwenke.jpg
- File:IAA2007 2007-09-17 16-41-53 - Flickr - Axel Schwenke.jpg
- File:IAA2007 2007-09-17 16-41-56 - Flickr - Axel Schwenke.jpg
- File:Modello scala 1-10.jpg Keep: no pertinent with [11]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs)
- File:Morgan 3 Wheeler Meccano Model - Flickr - mick - Lumix.jpg
- File:Moskvich 426 model 2.jpg
- File:Museum für Kommunikation - Depot Heusenstamm - Technik 24 - Flickr - KlausNahr.jpg
- File:Plactic Man 2012 scale model of a 1969 Chevy El Camino.jpg
- File:Rew3k19-001 Mamod SA1 roadster.jpg
- File:Rovigo, festa della Polizia di Stato 2011, modelli in scala moto ed auto.JPG
- File:SablonNSUro80Side.jpg
- File:Sbírka modelů aut.jpg
- File:Scale model of a police car based on Polski Fiat 126p FL 650 of Policja.jpg
- File:Scale model of a UAZ-469-based police automobile of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg
- File:Scale model of Zastava 750 of Slovenia's Miliciija.jpg
- File:SECME Mousetrap-cars.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-camel.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-gogo.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-miele2.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-spielzeug.jpg
- File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 170625 front.jpg
- File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 3-4 front.jpg
- File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 3-4 rear.jpg
- File:Toy car 1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 06:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- For File:Moskvich 426 model 2.jpg. This file was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2012 but was kept. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it. File talk:Moskvich 426 model 2.jpg. For File:ErAZ-762b.jpg — the same. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moskvich 426 model 2.jpg. You had to see it before nominate for deletion Lesless (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion does nowhere state why the model would be pd. See [12]. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- re File:Rew3k19-001 Mamod SA1 roadster.jpg. This is a photo taken by myself of a commercially manufactured item in my posession. I don't understand what the problem is. Roly Williams (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Per the above, the manufactured item is copyrighted and the photograph is a copyright infringement. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- (most likely was made an automatic or semi-automatic (trawling) but some files do not fit into this discussion, it must be removed the warning, some have even OTRS permission) File: one, two, tree ( and seven, is no pertinent with this discussions. File: four, five, six are autorized by respective museum: Museo dell'Automobile di Torino and Triennale Design Museum of Milan. However, four, five, and six are pertinent to this discussion and can be discussed (I can bring the statements of the museum). I note, however, that the criterion for which they have been placed in the file deletion is the case in which a person have a model and photographs the model, and not objects or models on display at the museum with explicit authorization to photography and sharing (there are two different things). The first 3 files are not relevant because it is not about model cars as they are understood in reference criterion for deletion, you have to be more careful when you select the files to delete them--Pava (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that files 1, 2 and 3 are in the public domain. The same for the files that you claim to have the permission of the copyright holder. Where can the permission be verified? If you have it, please forward it to the OTRS team as described at COM:OTRS. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1, 2 and 3 are not artistic model (are not repruction of automotive) are study model of automobiles, objects covered by the same standards of all other cars on display at the museums mentioned, if you want to cast doubt on the correctness of these images on commons must do it using another report, with other reasons, this indicator is not relevant with the images above, you must have reasons to doubt these pictures, and all other photos on the MAUTO of Turin or TDM of Milan. This deletion request is no pertinent with this image. The discussion that supports this deletion request does not touch these three photos, you need to express another question of fairness, this is not good. However, the website [13] can be a great place to ask about the freedom to photograph the exhibits. Furthermore, the license OTRS is already available for one of the photos that you put in cancellation --Pava (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Study models are copyrighted too and there is no particular need to renominate them, because it is clear they're non-free works far above any threshold of originality. The OTRS-confirmed license has been received from the photographer, not from the author/copyright holder of the model. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Ellesar you're ignoring (deliberately or unconsciously) what I've done this: you do not have defend your cause just because you started: images 1, 2, 3, and 7 are not eliminated by this cancellation request because the discussion that the supports is not inherent with the contents of these images. You simply put in cancellation without distinction all the images into a category, ignoring the content and then you also select images that are not consistent with the discussion of deleting reference to this request. If you want you can open a discussion cancellation of works exhibited in museums and study models of cars, and see what the community says, but it is against regulation and inconsistent that you put in deleting images that have nothing to do with the consent obtained from other users --Pava (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Study models are copyrighted too and there is no particular need to renominate them, because it is clear they're non-free works far above any threshold of originality. The OTRS-confirmed license has been received from the photographer, not from the author/copyright holder of the model. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1, 2 and 3 are not artistic model (are not repruction of automotive) are study model of automobiles, objects covered by the same standards of all other cars on display at the museums mentioned, if you want to cast doubt on the correctness of these images on commons must do it using another report, with other reasons, this indicator is not relevant with the images above, you must have reasons to doubt these pictures, and all other photos on the MAUTO of Turin or TDM of Milan. This deletion request is no pertinent with this image. The discussion that supports this deletion request does not touch these three photos, you need to express another question of fairness, this is not good. However, the website [13] can be a great place to ask about the freedom to photograph the exhibits. Furthermore, the license OTRS is already available for one of the photos that you put in cancellation --Pava (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that files 1, 2 and 3 are in the public domain. The same for the files that you claim to have the permission of the copyright holder. Where can the permission be verified? If you have it, please forward it to the OTRS team as described at COM:OTRS. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- There was already a similar discussion over two years ago (it resulted in keeping three pictures that are included in this deletion request): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scale model of a police car based on an FSO Warszawa M20-57 or 200 of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg. Everyone taking part in this discussion should read all of it. The conclusion was that "the scale model has nothing added to the original car that meets the threshold of originality - the different overall size doesn't, the use of plastic instead of steel doesn't and the absence of an operational engine isn't even visible at the picture". - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read this discussion. It is unclear how many creative choices have been made in creating these models, therefore it is impossible to say what their copyright status is. A reproduction may or may not be copyrighted, depending on how much it differs from the original. Per the cited source, if it is too similar to it or too different from it, it is copyrighted. It also says: "Alterations of the scale of the original work may qualify a reproduction for copyright." --Eleassar (t/p) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- SuperTank17, you do realise that User:Elcobbola/Models, which is linked in the first response at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/05#Models (as referenced in the nomination rationale), mentions and soundly rejects that decision as patently incorrect, right? —LX (talk, contribs) 07:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question Have we to nominate for deletion a lot of files in Category:Models of automobiles and in the subcategories as for exemple Category:Models of automobiles by brand, Category:Bburago models, Category:Polistil Model Cars, Category:Tamiya models of automobiles and so on? Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 170625 front.jpg, File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 3-4 front.jpg, File:Tatra 603 1954 maquette 3-4 rear.jpg and in general: This is ridiculous. Nobody is making rip-off copies of these models, these are mere pictures. With this logic you could very well be deleting pictures of anything that is not in the public domain. Isn't the main concern - as regards the pictures - whether the picture itself has been uploaded with sufficient authorization? Why is nobody contending pictures of cars themselves, but only of models? What about buildings? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cimmerian praeto here. See also: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Situla_from_Vače --Miha (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to the cases cited at the mentioned page, a relevant case is also [14]. In short, faithful copies (that differ only in size or not) seem to not be copyrightable. Of course, this is only the US law, the law in other countries may differ. I'll take another look at the nominations in the following days. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I've reviewed the nominations and am withdrawing the nomination for most images except:
- File:- 01 atomobile mania.jpg
- File:- 01 Manichino carrozzeria Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint.jpg
- File:3 - Barchetta Fiat (lavandino).jpg
- File:Cové6.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 123 - Automobilia - Zora.jpg
- File:GM Heritage Center - 124 - Automobilia - Zora.jpg
- File:SECME Mousetrap-cars.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-camel.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-gogo.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-miele2.jpg
- File:Stadtmuseum-gt-spielzeug.jpg.
- In my opinion, per the above, replicas are not copyrightable, unless there is some originality. I'm not sure whether File:Toy car 1.jpg is a replica of an actual car or not. Unless someone recognises the actual model, it should be presumed non-free. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to the cases cited at the mentioned page, a relevant case is also [14]. In short, faithful copies (that differ only in size or not) seem to not be copyrightable. Of course, this is only the US law, the law in other countries may differ. I'll take another look at the nominations in the following days. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Scale models are derivative works. Scale models are eligible for copyright (see Visual Arts (VA) registration form, 17 U.S.C. § 101 and the explanation/case law/etc. at User:Elcobbola/Models. Especially keep this one, there's no model specificly shown. As such de minimis applies. --High Contrast (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I somehow don't see how objects depicted in the above images for which I've withdrawn the nomination would be more original than the plastic Uncle Sam bank in this court case. Unless the copyright holder is the designer of the original car, which is not the case, because cars are functional objects and thus not copyrighted. The flags depicted in Stadtmuseum-gt-spielzeug.jpg are not free imo. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, could anybody please ask for revision of Commons:Deletion requests/File:MOHAI - SST model.jpg? Ain92 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- No revision for this one. Jim is/was absolutely right with his decission. Basically, models are copyrighted. See my comment above for further explanations. --High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone can propose the review at COM:UDR. I'm still missing a court case for the claim by High Contrast. On the contrary, this court case in conjunction with [15] (pg. 847) and [16] (pg. 42) clearly shows that models are not copyrighted, unless there is some original addition to them. --Eleassar (t/p) 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I understood the difference between models and scale models. And are the models for wind tunnels functional objects? Ain92 (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- No revision for this one. Jim is/was absolutely right with his decission. Basically, models are copyrighted. See my comment above for further explanations. --High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Some deleted, others kept. Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons FASTILY 08:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)