Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/10
 |
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}
_front.jpg){kind=link}
_cockpit.jpg){kind=link}
_rear.jpg){kind=link}
---_2013-09-08_11-56.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_5.JPG){kind=link}
_-_8.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_rgvzoomin.jpg){kind=link}
copyright infringement Cybersuicide (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: BS nomination Denniss (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. One of the people in this photo no longer plays in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
photo not approved by Lunic, LLC. please remove. Cybersuicide (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Estrogenic (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a mash-up of the work of two different photographers. Neither photographer gave permission for their work to be used or edit in such a manner. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrogenic (talk • contribs)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. Two of the people in this photo no longer play in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep I declined the rename request, because the file should either be deleted or kept, renaming it would not be within policy. As for this current request (1) it's in the wrong place (2) the image has historical merit, showing the band before it became a solo act, but (3) The original source clearly shows a copyright symbol, and we don't know whether the uploader owns the copyright (although there is EXIF data)- the artist may own the copyright, but once it's released with a free licence, that cannot be revoked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Two of the women in the photo were never band members of Lunic; they were live musicians for a few shows. Lunic has employed many live musicians. The photo should not have been named "official band photo" by me. It was a mistake. This file does not accurately reflect the Musical Artist, Lunic, and negatively impacts her trademark and branding. This photo is 4 years old, named incorrectly, and, thus, Obsolete. The file has been replaced by a better version because Lunic is not a group. She is and always has been a solo recording artist. The photo misrepresents her brand and her trademark and is therefore an Orphan. The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. The photo is also Unencyclopedic. The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Estrogenic (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- speedy keep 1) This is not Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. 2) If the file is named incorrectly you can use {{Rename}}. 3) File being 4 years old is definitely not a reason for deletion, this is not Wikinews, this is Wikimedia Commons. 4) Truth can be "negative", it is not a reason for deletion.
This request is closed kept as above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. One of the people in this photo no longer plays in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
photo not approved by Lunic, LLC. please remove. Cybersuicide (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Estrogenic (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a mash-up of the work of two different photographers. Neither photographer gave permission for their work to be used or edit in such a manner. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrogenic (talk • contribs)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, no educational content Atsirlin (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Massive upload of out of scope photos - speedily deleted rubin16 (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
404 Not Found. Please reupload McZusatz (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Il y a eu un bug lors du téléversement de ce fichier, si bien qu'il n'y a jamais eu moyen d'en téléverser un nouveau par dessus, j'ai donc demandé à ce qu'il soit supprimé pour que je puisse recommencer l'import. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Pleclown (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Personal photo, no educational content Atsirlin (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Massive upload of out of scope photos - speedily deleted rubin16 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, unbearably low quality Atsirlin (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Massive upload of out of scope photos - speedily deleted rubin16 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that CNFS Brasil (Flickr account) bears the legal rights of the FIFUSA. Lymantria (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, valueless to the project scope. Alan (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Per Alan and as uploader. It slipped throw in the upload fase. Tm (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per Alan and Tm. --Cekli829 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused; unencyclopedic watermark/overtext (cropped, too!); possible copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio (http://www.cam.org.au/vocations/Diocesan-Priesthood/Testimonies/Article/1151/bishop-vincent-long-ofm-conv) DHN (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio (http://www.catholic.org.tw/vntaiwan/vnchurch/haingoai/gmhieuca.htm) DHN (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio like other images uploaded by user DHN (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Jianhui67 Talk 09:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; should have been speedied High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio like other images uploaded by user DHN (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio like other images uploaded by user DHN (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio of MS Windows screenshots? -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator: the precautionary principle would support this deletion; the drawing might be of quite low resolution but they're complex enough not to get through with PD-simple or something comparable PD licensing High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsuitable media type (text). If usable should be transcribed into wikibooks, I guess. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Meanwhile I got the blurb translated: It is pure spammish dreck. Boo! -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: What is "Dreck"? High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.itusozluk.com/gorseller/devlet+bah%E7eli/57639 --Cekli829 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_front.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_front.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation (CarGuide.ph). Areaseven (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_front.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_front.jpg){kind=link}
_cockpit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cockpit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation (CarGuide.ph). Areaseven (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_cockpit.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_cockpit.jpg){kind=link}
_rear.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rear.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation (CarGuide.ph). Areaseven (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_rear.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_rear.jpg){kind=link}
According to a Google search this image has been published elsewhere since 2012 russavia (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That's much. Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 05:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Really an "own work" ? 91.66.153.214 07:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Spam, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Does it meet the project scope? No it does not High Contrast (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
unlikely own work as stated. Looks more than a cropped newpape scan o similar. JuTa 07:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom High Contrast (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 07:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 09:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.153.214 10:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Versehentlich von mir hochgeladen. Petrina Regeets (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-text}} High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
---_2013-09-08_11-56.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
---_2013-09-08_11-56.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, see http://monumentenfondsaruba.com/monumenten_details.php?prodId=NjI%3D&orgid=&newsid=&pageid=Mw%3D%3D&langid=Mg%3D%3D Effeietsanders (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Facebook). Areaseven (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; we have good alternative though High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Facebook). Areaseven (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Facebook). Areaseven (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; we do have better images of this type of truck High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation and upload by sockpuppet of blocked user Jajadelera (talk · contribs). Areaseven (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably a memory pic, no description. 91.66.153.214 17:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete; out of project scope. Nixón (wop!) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blurred image. Not useful at all. Sreejith K (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Licence appears wrong unless uploader is the designer of this work. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.thesupercars.org/zenvo/2009-zenvo-st1/ Kattenkruid (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work. (child photos). The cause is good, but there is no permission for photos of children Alan (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsuitable media format (text). Reads like an old version of es:Cerdaña. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
some homepage material, not used in any wikipedias Motopark (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
some homepage material, not used in any wikipedia Motopark (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Contenido sin relevancia para los proyectos de WMF. Facu89 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Contenido irrelevante en los proyectos de WMF Facu89 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Contenido irrelevante Facu89 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted text. We need permission from copyright owner. Sreejith K (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The text is dated January 1903, so the copyright on the English translation has expired. The original Hindi / Sanscrit text is ancient, so also not under copyright. - MPF (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep if you poke around in Google Books, the translation is basically that of w:John Faithfull Fleet (1847 – 21 February 1917).--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyvio. Image (or similar) was published here in 2005, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Blatant textbook scan/copyright violation. Wizardman 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの 153.135.54.104 03:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Bad callygraphy for simple text ("没图片求手拍"). Unused. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsuitable media type (text). Spam. Unused (no wonder!). -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsuitable media type (text). Unsourced selfbio of possibly non-notable person. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No use, terrible quality. Fry1989 eh? 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No use, low quality, SVG exists. Fry1989 eh? 04:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Telltale logo of an auction website in lower right corner. Suspect copyvio. 91.76.140.89 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No use, too tiny for any use, SVG exists. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It doesn't seem that CNFS Brasil bears the legal rights of the worldwide association AMF. Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Also do not know. I'll get in touch with CNFS to know. hugs--NosLida (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Correct disposal. The CNFS have the right to use, and not distribute.--NosLida (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Might be safer to Delete per the precautionary principle. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You are correct.--NosLida (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused user pic 91.66.153.214 05:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Needs an OTRS ticket ("Autora: Maude Barlow") 91.66.153.214 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Corrupt file 91.66.153.214 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the creator of this old b&w photograph? A specific name is needed so that we can figure out if the copyright has really expired. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the creator of this old b&w photograph? A specific name is needed so that we can figure out if the copyright has really expired. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned image - logo of a not-relevant TV station, useless for educational purposes L736E (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unclear whether the uploader has a permission to upload this file under this licence 91.66.153.214 07:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the creator of this old b&w photograph (or drawing, it's hard to even tell what it is)? A specific name is needed so that we can figure out if the copyright has really expired. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Because I've just upload the .jpg file, this is the .pdf Perlita sagrera (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of modern, presumably copyrighted statue, no information about artist, in unknown place. Not enough information provided to check for F.o.P. status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The place is en:Sa'dabad Palace, in Iran ([1]). There's no FOP in Iran. BrightRaven (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you know who the author is if the source is unkown? Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thumbnail, missing EXIF → might be a copyright violation, thoug I did not find any duplicates via Google. Apart from that, it is unused, uncategorized and the person depicted doesn't seem to be very noteworthy? El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Suspect copyright violation: Low resolution, has been published before here (2010). El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.153.214 10:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a photo of a photo; the uploader states on en.wiki that the picture is hanging in his home. He is unlikely to be the copyright holder of this image. Diannaa (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Other uploads by this user that have the same issue:
- file:PadmaShri Qadri with P.M Shri Lal bahadur Shastri.jpg
- file:President Ahmed visit to Qadri Residence.jpg
- file:Padma Shri Qadri with President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed.jpg
- file:Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Speech.jpg
- file:PadmaShri Qadri with Shri. Lal Bahadur Shastri.jpg
- file:PadmaShri Qadri.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
"Own work" 91.66.153.214 10:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No information about the original publication, so there is no reason to think it is in the PD in Turkey or in the USA. Latife Uşşaki married Atatürk on January 29th, 1923, so it is very unlikely that this picture was published before January 1st, 1923, so {{PD-US-1923}} is not valid. BrightRaven (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful. Yaris678 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
To expand on the above statement:
- The words seem to have been selected by the creator of the image based on the fact that they spell the word system.
- The only use of this image is at on en.wp, where it was added by the image creator.
- Nothing on Commons or en.wp indicates that these words have been recommended by anyone other than the image creator.
- Nothing on Commons or en.wp indicates the meaning of the pyramid. e.g. why are "tools and skills" above "enabling behaviour" when "measures and processes" are below? What does the width of each layer mean?
Yaris678 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: What a pile of dreck. (Also: "Your are"?! That’s a new variant to the derp’s shibboleth "Your" for "You’re".) -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Agreed. Unsystematic and full of typos. YewBowman (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 11:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_5.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_5.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted material. Спасибо за Ваши фотографии. К сожалению, конкретно эту пришлось вынести на удаление - и текст, и фотография, и дизайн информационного стенда защищены авторским правом. Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_5.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_5.JPG){kind=link}
Category:Cuisine of Ghana should be used
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_8.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_8.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted material, unfortunately has to be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_8.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_8.JPG){kind=link}
becaus eit is so sad and i am annoyed 217.60.112.117 12:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose And that should be a reason for deletion? The image is OK and useful. --Никола Стоіаноски 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Published in higher resolution. Copyright 2013 Knife Gallery Inc. -- Rillke(q?) 13:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused user pic 91.66.153.214 13:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Drawing from an Iranian publication of the 1970s. No evidence that the PD-Iran conditions for non-photographic works are met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This picture is of very low quality and little educational use. It does not add to the large category of better photos showing the bell-tower of St. Sophia Cathedral in Vologda Atsirlin (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No educational content. This photo has nothing to do with the cultural heritage. It does show a hydrofoil, but in a rather weird way. I think that this photo is of no use for Commons Atsirlin (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Indeed «this photo has nothing to do with the cultural heritage», and that’s a good reason to take it off WLM (and all the uploads by the same user, maybe?), but it is still usable after the bogus references to Petergof are removed (which I did). Once rotated to horizontal horizon, it will be a fine addition to Category:Type Meteor hydrofoils in Saint Petersburg, where it is the only picture taken in clear sunlight and the only to show one of these ships in “open sea” (as much as possible), offering a different perspective to the subject. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Clear image of the vessel. Now horizontal. Adding a location will help. Finavon (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted material. Спасибо за Ваши фотографии. К сожалению, конкретно эту пришлось вынести на удаление: текст и дизайн защищены авторскими правами. Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No evidence given that www.public-domain-image.com has permission from the toy's designer, Maurice Schlesinger (1907-1980), or his heirs, to release this image freely. Avenue (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think it is safe to assume that Leon Brooks only intended to release the rights to his photograph. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused, misdrawn, garbage ridden semantic duplicate of File:Paris m 13 jms.svg. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This picture shows detail information of a private building and connects the picture to a postal address. There is no permission given to upload pictures of the private building to the web. So please remove the picture as well as the postal address. 46.162.95.170 17:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Picture taken from public space (street). “Detail”ed information is but the street address, which can be also found monument directories. The photo doesn’t include anything that should cause embarrassment or concern over safety or privacy. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The building is not considered as a monument. It is not labeled to be one, as it would be necessary according to the German Monument protection law. Additionally are monument directories, made on Wikipedia are not officially approved and thus not usable to justify making media of private buildings available in an extremely high definition. Additionally the privacy of the inhabitants of the building should be respected. It doesn't show any social sensitivity of the editor when he values his urge of releasing information of private property higher than accepting there privacy. 46.162.95.170 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- This photo, as said, is in no way deterimental to the privacy of the dwellers. Nothing can be seen inside, there’s no person in sight, as well as no hanging laundry, garden tools, overflowing mail, or anything that’s not a permanent fixture. Unreasonable use of reasonable concern, to which editors are usually sensitive. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This house is part of the official list of cultural heritage monuments of the city Wehlen ([2]) -- Dr. Bernd Gross (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The other pictures which are linked to the address are in addition wrong since the soldier monument is not situated on this address. 46.162.95.170 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other pictures, of course. I know exactly what you mean with out the need for any links. It is only 17 million photos around, after all. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep fop --Atamari (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/sport/ipswich_town_s_josh_carson_training_with_hibs_1_2355858 Mattythewhite (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Karpoor Chand.jpg and File:Karpoor Chand Kulish.jpg : doubted to be 'own work', as well as (very) bad quality and not in use, Roland zh 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Karpoor Chand.jpg and File:Karpoor Chand Kulish.jpg : doubted to be 'own work', as well as (very) bad quality and not in use, Roland zh 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quality is good enough. I put it into his both articles. 91.66.153.214 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unless evidence of authorship/permission is offered. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
doubted to be 'own work', as well as relatively bad quality, please see also File:Karpoor Chand.jpg and File:Karpoor Chand Kulish.jpg, Roland zh 18:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
doubted to be 'own work' : format/date/exif missing, as well as other uploads within WLM 2013 by uploader, Roland zh 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
We have this image in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Just the state arms of Belgium with the motto removed. No scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Flickr pages are shown for different photos, but it is unlikely that the photographers are the owners of the images. It seems that they just took photos of the images created by the brand shown. Commons:License laundering? —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Other similar files:
—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused, low quality, wrong image format. Alternative exists: File:HRC marriage equality sign.svg. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Two source images have been deleted, at least one further image is of questionable source. They need to be replaced or the compilation has to be deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. Furthermore, this file illustrates more reasons why this kind of single-file “galleries” are a bad idea:
- Constituent images lose connection with their originals, like now — bad for licensing and identification.
- They lack flexibility, unlike individual lineups of original images in which one element can be swapped, added or removed upon any individual image change without disturbing the others (and with no need to create a new file or gravely overwrite the old one).
- The incompetent hacks who create these cannot even be arsed to avoid stretching or squeezing photos.
- Maybe the infamous new gallery rendering options could help making this kind of images fully avoidable and ready for deletion? (Not even necessary, but still…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Following Tuválkin's lead, I've edited the English Wikipedia article "Jamaican Canadian" to replace this photomontage with individual images. I agree with Tuválkin that it is easier to work with individual images than with photomontages precisely because of these kind of potential copyright problems. This particular image clearly has a copyright problem, and I vote to delete it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yay, looks sharp. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dankon Tuválkin, mia amiko! Michael Barera (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yay, looks sharp. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Most likely a screenshot. Jaqen (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Most likely a screenshot. Jaqen (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a copyrighted drawing; no permission given High Contrast (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_Flickr_-_rgvzoomin.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_rgvzoomin.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
film poster Perumalism Chat 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_Flickr_-_rgvzoomin.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
_-_Flickr_-_rgvzoomin.jpg){kind=link}
all the pictures Carl powner (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
because i am not any more with this person Carl powner (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: This is wrong in so many ways, I wont even comment.
- Anyway, nominator/uploader in a separate DR asks also for deletion of «all other pictures». These are:
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: File:MY LOVE MY LOVE.JPG is of exceptional quality (compared with the rest), although barely in scope. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Keep MY LOVE MY LOVE.JPG (uploaded in June 2012). Both persons can*t be identified, but younger viewers can learn that even the biggest love does not last forever. 91.66.153.214 08:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion of unused personal images. INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Licence wrong. Document copyright Government of India for 60 years from issue. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Work of government of India copyright fro 60 years from issue. Licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Work of government of India copyright fro 60 years from issue. Licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Licence is wrong, but the image is Free. Faizking321 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it free? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no rights of panorama in the United States. This photograph shows a mural at Electric Lady Studios in New York City. The artist's rights are not honored. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Work of government of India copyright fro 60 years from issue. Licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think would be the copyright status for forms that are freely available to the public and are (or were in this case) expected to be displayed on request by the "owner" - passport, licenses etc? See also File:Indian_Passport.jpg, File:Indian_Passport_Information_page_blank.png. (a lot more on Category:Documents_of_India Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- To add further - http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html says the scope of copyright refers to http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html " The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and cinematograph films and sound recordings from unauthorized uses. Unlike the case with patents, copyright protects the expressions and not the ideas. There is no copyright in an idea." The main definition "A work means any of the following , namely, a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a cinematograph film, or a sound recording." would suggest that this is not copyright eligible. Copying of legal tender like currency would be counterfeiting, but in this case there is no legal claim anymore. Shyamal (talk)
- Delete This has artistic works in it, and page 7 and 8 probably count as literary works. It's still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but do place in an undelete in 2040 category! Shyamal (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Work of government of India copyright fro 60 years from issue. Licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsuitable media format (text and some images). Move to wikibooks? -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Not PD outside US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Matissedance.jpg Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
-2013-09-10T06:58:00.000Z-File:Wandmalerei_Jekaterinburg_Matisse_anagoria.JPG){kind=link}
- This is not a reproduction of a Matisse painting, but a photograph of a graffitti in a Yekaterinburg street. This may be an interpretation of a matisse work, but the creator is certainly not Matisse, but a modern street artist who dedicated his work to the public. Anagoria (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may be, but it is still clearly a DW of the Matisse. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This map is seamless and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Türk Süvarisi (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I do not understand "seamless". As for false, Commons does not make decisions about the truth of maps. It is in use -- that is enough. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No use, original uploader is a well known abuser. A better resolution version also exists. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "a well known abuser", but is there any reason to think this image is invalid? Also, by "a better resolution version", do you mean File:Ukraine road sign 5.30.gif? If so, then yes, it's better in many ways. But it's a GIF. – Quadell (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rukshanawahab was an abusive user on Wikipedia, he used socks and falsely claimed other users (including myself) as the authors of his uploads. The file also is not properly sourced. Both are good reasons for it to go. That coupled with the fact that a properly sourced version of this sign at a better resolution now exists on Commons, there really is no need for this file any longer. Fry1989 eh? 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is eligible for copyright at all. Rukshanawahab's actions may have been inexcusable, but since this image is just a number, I don't think it could possibly be a non-free image. If it were tagged as ineligible, and Rukshanawahab's name were removed from the image description page, would you still object? – Quadell (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see no point for it to stay, and removing the original uploder's name would not change where it came from. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is eligible for copyright at all. Rukshanawahab's actions may have been inexcusable, but since this image is just a number, I don't think it could possibly be a non-free image. If it were tagged as ineligible, and Rukshanawahab's name were removed from the image description page, would you still object? – Quadell (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rukshanawahab was an abusive user on Wikipedia, he used socks and falsely claimed other users (including myself) as the authors of his uploads. The file also is not properly sourced. Both are good reasons for it to go. That coupled with the fact that a properly sourced version of this sign at a better resolution now exists on Commons, there really is no need for this file any longer. Fry1989 eh? 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Besides, a GIF can be trivially converted to PNG; a JPEG needs to be redrawn. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: Since this image is prima facia ineligible for copyright, and is not really the same as other versions, I can't see a good reason to delete it. On the other hand, I can't see a strong reason to keep it either, since it's essentially a low-res jpg of a number. So I don't suppose it matters much either way. – Quadell (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 91.66.153.214 as duplicate (Dupe) and the most recent rationale was: File:AlainRefalo2.jpg. Image of poor quality compared to alternate — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
According to this a W A Camwell that took photographs of tramways from the 1930s was still alive in 1986 (photograph at the bottom). Is this the same W A Camwell here?? Edgepedia (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While there certainly could have been two men of the same name photographing trams in Britain in the 1930s, it seems very unlikely. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong file format Cayman 5-1 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: An SVG would be better, but we don't have one. Even if an SVG was created later, this would not be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
poor quality, superseded by File:Danish flag of mourning.svg Ricordisamoa 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
poor quality, superseded by File:Hammer and sickle.svg and many others from Category:Hammer and sickle Ricordisamoa 21:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate Ohio highway shields
[edit]- File:Ohio State Highway 253.svg
- File:Ohio 299.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 10.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 11.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 115.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 12.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 14.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 15.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 16.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 18.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 2.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 21.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 25.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 252.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 254.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 26.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 261.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 28.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 3.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 31.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 314.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 315.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 316.svg
- File:Ohio State Highway 34.svg
All duplicates of shields in Category:Ohio State Route shields. --Rschen7754 05:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete—no need to have two files of the exact same thing. Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. All of these files are duplicates of the File:OH-###.svg nomenclature, which are far more utilized than these. –Fredddie™ 04:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Thanks for finding this out. Duplicates got deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
153.135.54.104 153.135.54.104 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
153.135.54.104 153.135.54.104 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
153.135.54.104 153.135.54.104 03:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
153.135.54.104 153.135.54.104 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
主催者・アーティストの許可無くアップロードされた写真の為 153.135.54.104 03:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of a performance, neither of which is unjust. --カメラがいっぱい (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David Bethune (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two of the images are from this Youtube film. I suspect that the third one might be from some kind of marketing material too.
- File:Limestone Technologies Inc. - Polygraph Test.jpg
- File:Polygraph Test - Limestone Technologies Inc.jpg
- File:Computerized Polygraph.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Liza mihaylenko (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Photos of CD artwork and newspapers. Unclear copyrights status of originals.
- File:Dúo Mezcal, Mili Peña y Roberto Monterrey.jpg
- File:Carátula de Su canto y su guitarra.jpg
- File:Su canto y su guitarra.jpg
- File:Algunas publicaciones de Folklore Argentino.jpg
- File:A la Carolina (Jaén), España.jpg
- File:Gato y Mancha.jpg
- File:Estampa Pampeana.jpg
- File:Poemas y Canciones.jpg
- File:Bienvenido Seas CD.jpg
- File:Roberto Monterrey con Luis Cobos.jpg
- File:Revista Folklore.jpg
- File:Roberto Monterrey.jpg
,_Espa%C3%B1a.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:DW: de minimis does not apply High Contrast (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stha.manish (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images appear to be from http://www.nepalarmy.mil.np/rank-structure.php
- File:Second Lieutenant Rank.jpg
- File:Lieutenant Rank.jpg
- File:Captain Rank.jpg
- File:Major Rank.jpg
- File:Lieutenant Colonel Rank.jpg
- File:Colonel Rank.jpg
- File:Brigadier General Rank.jpg
- File:General Rank.jpg
- File:Lieutenant General Rank.jpg
russavia (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence for these files being licensed under a free license given High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of historical photos, not own work.
- File:Sambo vs Judo 1957.jpg
- File:A. Harlampiev - coach students MEI.jpg
- File:Gloriozov v filme PREODOLENIE.jpg
- File:Gloriozov&Laverov 1956-2011.jpg
- File:Gloriozov skif.jpg
- File:Cipurskiy 2003.jpg
- File:Каращук с венгерским дзюдоистом1956.jpg
- File:А.А. Харлампиев и А.Ф. Каращук.jpg
- File:AAHarlampiev 1959.jpg
- File:И.Л. Ципурский, 28 марта 2003.jpg
- File:Ветераны самбо на юбилейном вечере, посвящённом 50-летию самбо в МЭИ.jpg
- File:А.Ф. Каращук (первый справа среди сидящих), 1964.jpg
- File:А.Ф. Каращук, 28 марта 2003.jpg
,_1964.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
These files are owned by Vladimir D. Ilyin
[edit]Some of them - are digital photos taken by Vladimir D. Ilyin.
- File:И.Л. Ципурский, 28 марта 2003.jpg
- File:Ветераны самбо на юбилейном вечере, посвящённом 50-летию самбо в МЭИ.jpg
- File:А.Ф. Каращук, 28 марта 2003.jpg
Another part - digital copies of paper pictures from Vladimir D. Ilyin's photo archive.
- File:Sambo vs Judo 1957.jpg
- File:A. Harlampiev - coach students MEI.jpg
- File:Каращук с венгерским дзюдоистом1956.jpg
- File:А.А. Харлампиев и А.Ф. Каращук.jpg
- File:AAHarlampiev 1959.jpg
Four files contain still frames from movies about the famous sambo fighters Eugene Gloriozov and Ilya Tsipursky. The movies are available on YouTube for free.
- File:Gloriozov v filme PREODOLENIE.jpg
- File:Gloriozov&Laverov 1956-2011.jpg
- File:Gloriozov skif.jpg
- File:Cipurskiy 2003.jpg
Vladimir D. Ilyin (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Collection of old photos of which we have no vlaid licensing information. It sure that these images are not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture with better focusing is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I have accidentally entered the wrong licence... Sruppi (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
In a GA nomination another editor noted that restriction "NIL" for the Library and Archives Canada does not indicated that it is in the CA public domain Leech44 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: While it is true that the indication "restrictions on use: nil" on the LAC webpage does not mean that an image is PD or freely licensed (see Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images), in this case copyright has expired in Canada. The photo is a work-for-hire taken for Weekend Magazine in 1955 (the LAC website confirms that copyright is held by the magazine); under s. 10 of the Canadian Copyright Act, the term of copyright is 50 years after creation when the owner is a body corporate. This image is, therefore, properly tagged {{PD-Canada}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As the copyright tag states correctly, the rationale the term of copyright is 50 years after creation when the owner is a body corporate of the previous keep decision is wrong and this image is a copyright violation. Adrian Bunk (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- No. The PD-Canada tag doesn't actually address copyright works by corporations. The previous keep decision was correct, as per the actual Canadian Copyright Act. However, what has changed in the meantime is that a U.S. court in 1912 upheld the restoration of foreign copyrights in URAA, so we no longer use the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag. While the image is public domain in Canada, Commons requires that it also be public domain in the U.S. (which it is not), so delete. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is also still copyrighted per the Canadian Copyright Act (I am not talking about US copyright legislation at all).
- You seem to make the common beginner's mistake of confusing copyright owner and author: The current owner of the copyright might be a corporation, but the copyright is always valid until 50 years after the death of the author.
- It is therefore irrelevant whether the current owner is a corporation or a person (and that could anyway change at any time) - the only thing that matters is whether Louis Jaques died before 1963.
- According to this website he was alive until at least 1986.
- It therefore looks pretty clear to me that this image (and all other images by Louis Jaques) are still copyrighted in Canada, and the keep decision was already wrong back then.
- --Adrian Bunk (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Copyright Act as it existed at the time of this photograph specifically deemed the owner of the initial negative or photo as the author of the photograph, and where that owner is a corporation the term of copyright is the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or photograph, plus a period of fifty years (unless the majority of shares of the corporation are owned by a person who otherwise would have been the author, in which case it is 50 years pma) (see subsections 10(1) and 10(2) of the pre Bill c-11 statute). The legislation treated photos differently than other works in this respect. So, copyright would have likely expired in Canada in 2006. I hope that's helpful, and let me know if I have misunderstood your comments. In any event, it's not particularly relevant because of the U.S. copyright situation.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I missed that special case in the old Canadian Copyright law. People often make the beginner's mistake of thinking that the owner or the subject of the image would be relevant in the common case that the only thing that matters is the death of the author, but in this case the initial owner actually matters. So you are right and I was wrong. --Adrian Bunk (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. It's not about being right or wrong. Copyright law is convoluted, and it often takes a discussion among editors to sort out how it applies in each case. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I missed that special case in the old Canadian Copyright law. People often make the beginner's mistake of thinking that the owner or the subject of the image would be relevant in the common case that the only thing that matters is the death of the author, but in this case the initial owner actually matters. So you are right and I was wrong. --Adrian Bunk (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Copyright Act as it existed at the time of this photograph specifically deemed the owner of the initial negative or photo as the author of the photograph, and where that owner is a corporation the term of copyright is the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or photograph, plus a period of fifty years (unless the majority of shares of the corporation are owned by a person who otherwise would have been the author, in which case it is 50 years pma) (see subsections 10(1) and 10(2) of the pre Bill c-11 statute). The legislation treated photos differently than other works in this respect. So, copyright would have likely expired in Canada in 2006. I hope that's helpful, and let me know if I have misunderstood your comments. In any event, it's not particularly relevant because of the U.S. copyright situation.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that the photo was taken "in exile", it follows it was not taken on Polish territory. We need a specific name for the photo's author so that we can figure out which country's copyright applies and if the copyright has really expired. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep First: Photo was taken before 1939 (as was described). Second: according to Berne Convention and Polish copyright, the place where photo was first made publish is resolving the question of copyright. No any reason for deleting - it's copyfree according to Polish law, US law, and Berne Convention. Andros64 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- But where was it first published and by whom? Please note that the template asks (in bold): Please provide where and when the image was first published. Photo being taken "before 1939" is inconclusive as far as copyright is concerned. Raczynski was Poland's ambassador to the UK since 1932, so this could well be a photo taken in London by some British journalist, who might have died late enough (or not have even died yet) so that p.m.a.+70 (UK law) still puts the photo in copyright. Likewise, the photo may have been taken inside the Polish embassy, which would be Polish territory, or it may have been taken at a signing ceremony somewhere else in Lodon (or even elsewhere) in British territory or even some other country. For example File:Edward Bernard Raczynski 1932.jpg was taken by a photographer who sold the rights to or worked for a French press agency. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Polish law, US law, and Berne Convention, as clearly indicated. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 08:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
File:OwAAABI8JAyqLA6Nv-tRVE5W0wdZ8Zi1TXMafH9PkXUOtzyBnx9UM4vs465sa8EOCVqa3rhp-xorbhCk-d9KS2ytfOYAm1T1UGMdCghlMeEINr1E8YWzOVTr tyK.jpg
[edit]
Useless without a description. 91.66.153.214 10:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: With its silly filename and useless categories (Groups and Unidentified people) it was never found by editors who can readily identify the details of this scene and ascertain its relevance. I added now much more detailed categories and it is likely that people in the know about Brazilian beach soccer will soon find the image and diffuse it down to the proper bottom categories. If it turns out to be off scope once details are know, then let it be deleted. Also, rename this to something like AzuisFormação@CopacabanaPalace.jpg once the DR is closed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal image, out of scope FASTILY 08:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No premission Gordon F. Smith (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Nutzungsrecht liegt von IG BAU liegt vor.--Tom Strason (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Kannst du dies via Email an diese Adresse bitte bestätigen: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . Danke! --High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment OTRS pending: let's keep it open. --High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been a little over a month. If OTRS permission is recieved, this file can be restored FASTILY 08:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
unused private data - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: same problems with all files of this user, all out of scope (publication of a complaint in a law case), even the homepage of this user was deleted Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Marriage certificate copy. I agree that this is personal data, but this could be useful in articles about Marriage registrations in India --Kuttappan Chettan (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Can be used in articles about marriage in india GeorgHH • talk 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Personality rights warning Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - we have {{Personality rights}} for that - Jcb (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Work of government of India copyright fro 60 years from issue. Licence given is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted FASTILY 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Who is the creator of this map? A specific name is needed so that we can figure out if they really released this under the license claimed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Source: en:File:RussiaChelyabinsk.png, was originally upoaded at 12:38, 22 Feb 2004 by en:User:Morwen (see archived version of filedesc). --Kaganer (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the description. It didn't occur to me that archive.org archives Wikipedia as well... Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: fixed it seems FASTILY 08:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you can delete both of them. I think the similar pictures seem to be better.--D.O.G.A. (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Scaled-down near-duplicate of File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.svg (which is itself superseded by File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg); not used or needed. Alkari (?), 29 August 2012, 21:44 UTC 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: Undeleted per Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests#File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg, but after looking, it does seem as though this PNG is just a rendering of the SVG, with the only differences being some rendering errors introduced to the SVG (missing gradients and/or elements). I could see re-deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. This file was uploaded to illustrate pages posted on en.wikipedia, apparently about a so-called organization, pages which were speedily deleted three times for being out of scope, "patent nonsense" [3] and "vandalism" [4] and was a probable hoax [5]. The uploader claimed authorship of the image to "Jon Fernandez", although it is visibly a copy (with minor oddities thrown in) of another file illustrating the arms of the United Kingdom and made by other people. As such it is also a copyright violation. This file was correctly deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theknightsoftheproverbialtable.png. It was strangely undeleted on the occasion of an undeletion request about a different file. However, even the only user who had advocated the undeletion has changed his mind, as he explained in addenda on those deletion and undeletion pages. I can't imagine a good reason to keep a copyvio faking the Arms of the UK and whose only role was to illustrate a deleted wikipedia probable hoax article about a supposed organization. This file serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It is out of scope. Asclepias (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- DeleteAs it is just the rasterization of a SVG, there is no need to keep this file. Kathisma (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Нет разрешения на свободное использование Dogad75 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- А как мне получить это разрешение??Фотографировал я лично его! На фото видно, что он явно позирует! Кроме этого, было направлено письмо на COM:OTRS.
Все равно до конца не понятны и четко определны правила -фото мое, сделанное мной, на фото персонаж явно позирует, направленно письмо на COM:OTRS -тем не менее все равно "К удалению". Где логика? Lozove (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Lozove
Deleted: FASTILY 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be unfree as you can't use the images for various purposes such as advertisements encouraging violence. Compare with w:Douglas Crockford#Criticism.
There also seem to be restrictions on modifications. Stefan4 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Although it's a very close call, I would say that those are non-copyright restrictions, similar to personal rights or to trademark restrictions, both of which we accept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 08:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)