Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/30

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 30th, 2013
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (11).jpg

[edit]

The Citroën showroom in under copyright. there is no freedom of panorama un France Trizek from FR 09:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A PARADE NEAR ARC DE TRIUMPH-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (1).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A PARADE NEAR ARC DE TRIUMPH-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (2).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A PARADE NEAR ARC DE TRIUMPH-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (3).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (14).jpg

[edit]

Bad quality - copyvio of the brand logo Remi Mathis (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope: quality too low - unusable and NO FOP in France Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (15).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope: quality too low - unusable Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (17).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope: quality too low - unusable Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (16).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope: quality too low - unusable Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fran Ryan.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio, please delete per Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:Fran Ryan.jpg Liamdavies (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, {{Copyvio}}. Screenshot of non-free television broadcast. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: (c) vio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Facultad de derecho UMSS.JPG

[edit]

me equivoque de archivo Melissaisis (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Es una pena no dejar el fichero, pero como quieras. Platonides (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Europeana balticway.jpg

[edit]

No evidence for a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a CC-BY-SA image but there is no clear evidence. You are right. I asked the webmaster of the original website, Europeana, if they can add a CC-BY-SA footnote to the source URL in order to clarify it. Please be patient. :-)--Kippelboy (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence has been added at the source URL, so now everything is clear --Kippelboy (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per the newly added source link High Contrast (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atomium (Brussels).jpg

[edit]

COM:FOP#Belgium - The Atomium is © SABAM on behalf of Waterkeyn's heirs. The image fails COM:DM. 67.87.46.39 23:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Speedied as clearcut case of derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:U.S. Fan Club, Sam’s Army, Walks to U.S. vs. Algeria World Cup Match.jpg

[edit]

Non-free drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, batch upload, did not notice that. The banner was not the real subject of the pic though - the people were, as the title tells. Thanks for your message, I'll be fine whatever you decide. --Elitre (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the photo should be in public domain. This is written in the caption of the image you can see just below the image where it says "[State Department photo/Public Domain]." Excuse the ignorance, but "Non-free drawing" is a bit generic. What does it mean? ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say "non-free logo on the banner". --Eleassar (t/p) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: DM. That apart, the mark seems to be dead. Too simple elements (an Uncle Sam top hat and an association football ball) to get it eligible for copyright, I presume. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Presidente-FelipeSegundoGuzman.jpg

[edit]

The permission doesn't seem to come from the copyright holder and is therefore useless. w:File:FELIPE SEGUNDO GUZMÁN.jpg gives a different source. Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis 2013.jpg

[edit]

Once more an terrible bad image of an ugly penis... Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Unlikely to be of use with such poor quality. I am surprised to see an admin make personal comments about the subject when creating a DR, what's next, "ugly baby", "revolting fat woman"? --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why it should be of importance that I'm an Admin? I'm a human being and I write what I want to write. I don't need a personal censorship against myself! Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Marcus Cyron, your philosophy of "write what I want to write" is an admirable call for the support of free speech, so long as it does not become incompatible with COM:ADMIN. The policy for administrators includes "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus." Though this is not an administrative action, creating deletion requests that may appear to include ad-hominim attacks on contributors and therefore create a hostile environment for some contributors, rather than focusing on the media (such as whether it is in scope and of sufficient quality to have educational value) and its copyright status, fails to follow this aspect of the administrators policy. There is a choice to be made between writing whatever you want, and upholding the community aspect of being an administrator. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Commons doesn't need excessive amount of images depicting penises. --Ras67 (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Me 2013-08-18 04-15.jpg

[edit]

Unremarkable picture of a finger - don't see the educational value Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:St. CHAPPELLE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (3).jpg

[edit]

more sky than building Edelseider (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete I agree. There are many better images of the sainte-Chapelle. And instead of putting his name in all his file names it should be better than he put description in the photo ! --Tangopaso (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fraser Road, Patna, by night.jpg

[edit]

On Flickr the file is marked as "All right reserved", but Shivametsu has somehow uploaded it as "Some Right Reserved". Since Shivametsu has continued to violate copyright laws, despite previous warnings, so he should be blocked. Vigyani (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Actually, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. Also, previously i thought flickr photos are freely licensed. About warnings.. this was the very first time when i've uploaded any photo from flickr. Shivamsetu (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok. Next time please pay attention to the the rules at COM:F , alternatively you can use this tool to verify if a image on flickr is allowed or not on commons. About warnings.. I was referring to other warnings which you received related to copyright content (not flickr related), but as you say you were not aware and I hope you will be careful in future.--Vigyani (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shivamsetu (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Patna JN. aerial.jpg

[edit]

per COM:F, CC-NC-ND files from flickr are now allowed, but still this user has uploaded this file under CC. On flickr this is CC-NC-ND Vigyani (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shivamsetu (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (34).jpg

[edit]

So bad we cannot do anything out of it Remi Mathis (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (32).jpg

[edit]

So bad we cannot do anything out of it Remi Mathis (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ShoePics Verpackung.jpg

[edit]

spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ShoePics Kid.jpg

[edit]

spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 10:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:About rickyvelerr.jpeg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ealerhg.svg

[edit]

No educational value, no descriptive text given, unused Torsch (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yelena Saparina.JPG

[edit]

Pretty clearly a photo of a photo, most likely from a book jacket. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lili Haydn Red Room.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation; see http://www.lilihaydn.com/gallery.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: Lili Haydn owns the copyright to that image. I am her assistant, I don't understand how I'm supposed to change the picture on her wikipedia page that currently is one she doesn't want representing her. Please help. — Keeleybum (talk · contribs) 01:19, 30 September 2013‎

Deleted: by Marcus Cyron -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arciniegas, de Greiff, Vidales, Burelli and Laserna.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a photo taken of a book, questionable the uploader actually took the original photo. Courcelles 02:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Germán Arciniegas embajador.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a photo taken of a book, questionable the uploader actually took the original photo. Courcelles 02:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Germán Arciniegas and his mother.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a photo taken of a book, questionable the uploader actually took the original photo. Courcelles 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Germán Arciniegas.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a photo taken of a book, questionable the uploader actually took the original photo. Courcelles 02:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:France-28e73.gif

[edit]

No use, SVG exists. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of Spain-20px.png

[edit]

SVG exists, no use. Fry1989 eh? 02:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:갤럭시노트3의 이미지입니다 2013-09-08 00-29.jpeg

[edit]

OS is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taobao Logo.jpg

[edit]

non-free logo Qiyue2001 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info the upper part is three Chinese characters, which can be decoded into utf-8, while the bottom part can be decoded into ASCII. Therefore, IMO this is {{PD-text}}. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taobao Logo.jpg

[edit]

unused, superseeded by File:Taobao Logo.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 03:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Staircase of the Palace.jpg

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. P.N. Praveen 04:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC) --P.N. Praveen 09:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paintings on the Wall.jpg

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. P.N. Praveen 04:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) --P.N. Praveen 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paintings of 1791.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Roof painting.jpg

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Carvings in the palace.jpg

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Way to the Inside of Palace.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Symmetry in the Palace.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Architecture of the Palace.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination. --P.N. Praveen 10:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Welcome to the Bangalore Tippu Palace.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination.--P.N. Praveen 10:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Corridor.JPG

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination.--P.N. Praveen 10:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rear View of the Palace.jpg

[edit]

I did this by mistake and would decline my self nomination.--P.N. Praveen 10:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The WLM participant nominated his contribution by mistake as he felt that the image would not be considered for the contest as he missed out to fill the identifier number. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bank Passbook Page in Andhra Pradesh, India.pdf

[edit]

There seems to be some problem with scanning - better delete it before a good one can be uploaded. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bea y yotuel.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work/unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 06.2008 by Baduy, configured with author = Alicia Ortega and apparently already deleted without permission per File:BeatrizLuengo.png, this file was previously published (even in lower res & sometimes watermarked) via examples:

Deleted: Even if it is own work, it needs OTRS permission .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Christian Spannagel.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Christian Spannagel Lutz Berger.jpg Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: This one is in use, the other is not, so I deleted the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dr Glenda Glover.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Dr Glenda Glover TSU.jpg Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unfortunately, both are lifted from TSU web pages that have explicit copyright notices -- http://tnstatenewsroom.com/archives/8531 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:University of ndjam.jpg

[edit]

does not look selfcreated, but copied form a website Antemister (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Appears on many web sites. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:EIFFEL TOWER BY DAY-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (3).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moscow International Book Fair 2013 - 105.jpg

[edit]

Derivative of poster with copyrightable content, author/permission missing A.Savin 08:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (4).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AVENUE des CHAMPS-ELYSEES-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (1).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE PALAIS BOURBON-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (6).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE PALAIS BOURBON-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (5).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (13).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (1).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A THEATRE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (1).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AMERICAN CATHEDRAL-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (1).jpg

[edit]

Souvenir picture, not encyclopaedic Edelseider (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:原理.gif

[edit]

No description, not used. 91.66.153.214 09:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Let’s have a Chinese-speaking physicist saying that before deleting, okay? Meanwhile I added 2 cats which may move this file under the eye of those better informed ones. (Also, it needs that cleanup tag that says that something like «this non-photographic file was once ruined by lossy compression and later saved as a lossless file» — similar to {{Badjpg}}, but not it.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK and thanks for the categories. 91.66.153.214 15:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is a simple induction lamp. The image is a Chinese language version which is identical (except for the labels) to an English language drawing which appears on many copyrighted web sites. Even if it is "own work", as claimed, it will need OTRS permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wien - Team Stronach-Auto.jpg

[edit]

IMHO the advertising on this car is not COM:de minimis, making this a copyright violation as a derivative work darkweasel94 09:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The photograph certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (18).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (19).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (17).jpg

[edit]

So bad a quality nothing can be done with it Remi Mathis (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GRAND PALAIS-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (29).jpg

[edit]

Obviously a recent work of art and thereby still copyrighted. As France has no FOP-exemption, the photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Памятник 1000 летию россии.jpg

[edit]

This monument is in Novgorod Kremlin, not Moscow Kremlin. But I suggest to delete the photo anyway, because we have hundreds of better pictures. This one is of very low quality Atsirlin (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A SQUARE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio (no freedom of panorama in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Centre Georges Pompidou, Beaubourg.jpg

[edit]

This building is under copyright and there is no Freedom of panorama in France Trizek from FR 10:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Село Огибалово, Архангельская церковь. 2.jpg

[edit]

mass deletion request: An accidental upload of many thumbnail files (check Special:ListFiles/Shukalevich 15:22, 29 September 2013 and earlier) - too tiny to be of any use. Full-size photos are already in place. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the full list:
Nominator is advised to withdraw/moot this DR and mark as {{Duplicate}} each of these files, linked to its full-size equivalent. (Yes, it would have been less tiring to have uploaded the full-size equivalents overwriting the thumbnails. Maybe next year WLM organizers and participants be actually trained bout ho to use Commons to avoid this kind of troubles?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is actually much faster to delete these here using DelReqHandler than to delete them individually if they had a {{Duplicate}} tag. Not that this uploader has many duplicates -- in one case, a series of ten or fifteen that are identical except for clouds. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument of Martiros Saryan (13).jpg

[edit]

While the monument in the background is covered by freedom-of-panorama exemption of Armenia, I doubt this is also true for the paintings which are only temporarily exhibited. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument of Martiros Saryan (11).JPG

[edit]

While the monument in the background is covered by freedom-of-panorama exemption of Armenia, I doubt this is also true for the paintings which are only temporarily exhibited. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument of Martiros Saryan (14).jpg

[edit]

Unlikely that freedom-of-panorama exemption of Armenia covers thes paintings which are only temporarily exhibited to the public. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARC de TRIUMPHE-PARIS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (20).jpg

[edit]

So bad we cannot do anything out of it Remi Mathis (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 03:02, 1 October 2013 by Hedwig in Washington, closed by .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bharat Plaza sceenshot.png

[edit]

Screenshot of a promotional website, and I don't see any educational purpose here. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE + Copyright violation Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paviljon.JPG

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence this pavilion/hut would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dr. Pathrose Parathuvayalil MD(Ay).jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Dr. Pathrose Parathuvayalil, Chairman & Managing Director, Dr. Pathrose Parathuvayalil Group (PPG).jpg Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paper panting (+918769599896).jpg

[edit]

Photograph of modern painting. Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:British Overseas Airways Corporation (logo).svg

[edit]

The artistic parts look too complex for COM:TOO#United Kingdom. There is additionally no evidence of permission from the person who made the SVG file. Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except the fact it's too old!  Keep Fry1989 eh? 03:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell that it is too old? According to w:Speedbird, it seems to be from around 1965. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BOAC dates to '39. Fry1989 eh? 23:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 05:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:British Overseas Airways Corporation (logo).svg

[edit]

Fails COM:TOO#United Kingdom and the date it was first used is not the critical date, this is because UK Copyright law does not recognise corporate creation of copyright and the length of copyright is determined by the date of death of the employee who created the work; do we have any proof that the person who created this logo for BOAC has been dead more than 70 years, ie died prior to 1943 ? If not then it would still be in copyright in the UK. LGA talkedits 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK if a work is created in the course of one's employment, the copyright is owned by the employer.[1]. The Speedbird device seems to have been created in 1932 for Imperial Airways.[2] and so presumably the 1911 Act applied.[3] Thincat (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe it was a work for hire or not but according to this page of Imperial Airways timetables the speedbird element was created, as you say, in 1932 and use extensively for publicity and marketing. It was designed by Theyre Lee-Elliott who according to the National Portrait Gallery died in 1988. Ww2censor (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. And it was used by British Airways up to 1984.[4] What were the chances in 1932 (or later) that Imperial Airways wouldn't have held the copyright? Thincat (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that information and looking at the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 :
  1. Ch1. Sec.4 defines as an artistic work "a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality" so this is an artistic work;
  2. Ch1. Sec.9 Defines the author as the person who creates it (I am assuming as above Theyre Lee-Elliott);
  3. Ch1. Sec.11 says that the first owner of the copyright is the employer, however this would appear not to have any relevance to the duration of the copyright;
  4. Ch1. Sec.12 defines the duration of copyright as 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies;
  5. Schedule 1 Sec.12 part 6 list the transitional provisions from one act to another and says that the 1988 act applies to this work in relation to duration of copyright.
So given all of that it seems highly likely that the copyright of this logo IN THE UK runs until the end of 2058. LGA talkedits 08:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't (and I will not) give a view on whether this file should be deleted. However, I think you have clarified what had been puzzling me in the 1911 Act. The owner of the copyright is the artist or his employer depending on circumstances but the duration of the copyright is solely on the author. So, although we were rather talking past each other, we were both technically correct. Right? Thincat (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the UK define "anonymous" for corporate works? The w:Copyright Duration Directive states that if the initial copyright holder is a legal person, then the work is anonymous unless the author is named on the copies which are made available to the public. I don't know whether that requires attribution each time the logo is used or only the first time. A logo would usually not be attributed to its author when the logo is used as a logo, but only when the logo is used in a text specifically discussing the logo.
Note article 10 tells that the directive didn't shorten the copyright to any existing works, which is why some templates and pages mention special rules for British unpublished works. Therefore, it is also necessary to know how "anonymous" was defined in the UK law prior to adoption of the directive. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Per last DR, nothing significant or new. Fry1989 eh? 23:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The law specifically says that the copyright of an audiovisual work is set by the longest of the lives of the director, the screenplay author, the dialogue author, and the music composer. This is true even if (as is almost always the case) the copyright owner is a corporation. I find it hard to image that a still painting with a known author is not similarly set by the life of the author even though it was owned by a corporation. In this case, the author, Theyre Lee-Elliott, was an independent graphic artist, not an employee of the airline. It is entirely possible that he only licensed the rights to make derivative works of his original painting. There's a biography and a photo of the original painting at www.stampprinters.info, but Commons spam filter won't let me link it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pene semierecto.jpg

[edit]

we have enough ugly penis images Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PENIS, low quality file -- Steinsplitter (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis; Hodensack von unten 2013-08-09 23-36.jpg

[edit]

penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE.


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis; hängend 2013-08-09 23-37.jpg

[edit]

penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis 2013-08-09 23-37.jpg

[edit]

penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shaved1.jpg

[edit]

Penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shaved2.jpg

[edit]

penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shaved3.jpg

[edit]

penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as unused low-quality shot with no useful description or categorization. This appears to be a case of COM:PORN which is deleted on ground of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Basilio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

As recognized by uploader, the images comes from a book scan. Although a coat of arms design is, in Spain, in the public domain, specific realizations aren't. See discussion (in Spanish) here

Stromare (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violations Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Basilio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The artwork in the cigarette packs are obviously copyrighted. The nominated pictures cannot invoke De minimis

Stromare (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More heraldic designs uploaded by Basilio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Check first deletion debate, now closed.

Totemkin (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Marflo2011 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright violations -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Uohcikiw (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Zámek Horní Branná

[edit]

wrong name RomanM82 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zámek Horní Branná

[edit]

wrong name, should have been category RomanM82 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Please use {{Speedy}} for routine housekeeping. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Callaway, talking to Indians pitcher Scott Kazmir- 2013-09-30 18-29.jpg

[edit]

Uploader is not copyright owner (see metadata). discospinster (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palacio Nacional de Gobierno y Justicia-CASCO ANTIGUO.jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio Nacional de Gobierno y Justicia-CASCO ANTIGUO.jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader requested deletion Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Plaza de la Catedral, Casco Antiguo..jpg

[edit]

lo coloque donde no era Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza de la Catedral, Casco Antiguo..jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza de la Catedral, Casco Antiguo..jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza de la Catedral, Casco Antiguo..jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Correct the file page, then, or rename the photo, if necessary, to match the uploaded image — don’t file in frivolous DRs. And especially do not file in eigth (!) four DRs for the same image. It is useless, annoying, and makes you look slightly less than stellar. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Description / file name not updated. Deleted per uploader request Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lola Herrera.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/807313 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/05/06/807313.jpg = last modified: 06.05.2008, see also file path, also available via http://listas.20minutos.es/lista/madres-e-hijas-famosas-en-la-misma-profesion-93590/ = http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2009-04/93590/1116559_640px.jpg from 2009) as it was previously published via (examples)

or

The 1st episode of TV-serie "Fuera de lugar aired on TV on 05.05.2008. This is most likely a promotional photo provided by TVE, the producer. Gunnex (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ana Obregón MQB.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/874680 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/29/874680.jpg = last modified: 29.09.2008, see also file path) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/ana-obregon-mira-quien-baila/ (23.09.2008) = (higher res) http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/5500/5552.jpg (last modified: 23.09.2008), described with "Ana Obregón, concursando en la séptima edición de '¡Mira quién baila!' and given credits to "RTVE". "¡Mira quién baila!" is a dance competition which aired (in his 7th edition) on 22.09.2008 on Spain TV, transmitted by broadcaster "en:La 1 (Spain)", owned by RTVE. Details: es:¡Más que baile!#Séptima edición (2008-2009) (the name was changed to "¡Más que baile!" in 2010). This is most likely a promotional photo provided by RTVE, the producer. Gunnex (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cbt 007.JPG

[edit]

Penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cbt008.JPG

[edit]

Penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Verónica Sánchez.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/88914/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2005/04/26/88914.jpg = last modified: 02.07.2005, per file path uploaded on 26.04.2005) as it was previously published via (example) http://m.forocoches.com/foro//showthread.php?t=54396 (2004) = http://www.terra.es/addon/img/joven/1315be4veronicasanchezp.jpg (last modified: 01.2004, full frame available - and not a thumbnail), coming somewhere from http://www.terra.es = en:Terra Networks. Additionally, per http://www.revistavanityfair.es/articulos/un-cafe-con-veronica-sanchez/16455 (2012) = http://cdn.revistavanityfair.es/uploads/images/thumbs/201217/veronica_sanchez_2172_300x496.jpg described with "Verónica Sánchez cuando era Eva en 'Los Serrano' (año 2000) " and credited with "© Gtresonline" which indicates to http://gtresonline.net/, a press agency apparently created only in 2010 but with this increasing the copyright-chaos which is related to this the image. Gunnex (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Braille Upwriter with new features (Left to right Braille Up Writing Device (New Braille Upwriter) with the Braille English alphabets (letter Sign) & very useful Punctuation Marks..jpg

[edit]

Promotional content. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rimski grob1.JPG

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence this gate is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Zvezda.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence this post-WWI architecture is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 12:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (6).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the monument on the right side and the bridge are still copyrighted and not de minimis: the image would be significantly different without them. Eleassar (t/p) 12:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Waterbus Merwekade 2.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Waterbus Dordrecht Merwekade.jpg Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Devanagari-ssha.png

[edit]

Substandard use example Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SNV80007.JPG

[edit]

Snapshot of non-free text and photo. No freedom of panorama. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SNV80043.JPG

[edit]

Snapshot of non-free drawing. No freedom of panorama. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Weldex 1.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vakuum 1.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Analitika 1.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Weldex 2.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Analitika 2.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vakuum 2.jpg

[edit]

Promotional material adding no value to Commons and probably not the copyright of the uploader. This uploader has had previous tranches of uploads deleted for the same or for similar reasons. Timtrent (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Busto Colombres.JPG

[edit]

This bust might be a recent work and thereby still copyrighted. As Argentina has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for non-buildings, the photo would then violate the sculptors copyright. Any information about the sculptor and the year of installation available? -- Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Busto y Casa del O. Colombres.JPG

[edit]

This bust might be a recent work and thereby still copyrighted. As Argentina has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for non-buildings, the photo would then violate the sculptors copyright. Any information about the sculptor and the year of installation available? -- Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Esplanada Mineirão.JPG

[edit]

Everything else by the uploader turned out to be copyvio, so this might also be copyvio. No EXIF. Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prince abdulaziz bin salman bin mohammad al saud.jpg

[edit]

A charming picture of the gentleman, but most unlikely to be the uploader's own work. This is a photoshopped picture Timtrent (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Librello publishing house.png

[edit]

A logo, which is unlikely to be free use, thus out of scope Timtrent (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Librello Open Access Publishing house. Logo is provided as reference for Universities, indexing companies and scientific content harvesters, as they normally make reference of partnership with different institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josille1 (talk • contribs)

Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hanjian-1937.jpg

[edit]

It says "Translated by Louis Hsia (夏孫桂譯)". I don't know what the source country is, but I'd suspect that this comes from Asia, so we would have to make sure that the translator has been dead for sufficiently long before we can use the English translation. Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ex Ospedale Sant'Agostino Modena.webm

[edit]

the file is not the right one. The user has uploaded all the correct files now (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ecoltex) Aubrey (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:VidGajsek - Pozor delo na Visini.tif

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Evelio.jpg

[edit]

unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 14:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Heraldic Emblem of Persia (16th century-1907).svg

[edit]

Low quality, redundant, and was never used. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ivanoff+Blou+Bul.jpg

[edit]

Non-free drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Adidas Jabulani Gold (1).jpg

[edit]

Non-free design, including a non-free logo. Eleassar (t/p) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Павшим за родину.JPG

[edit]

recent 3d public artwork, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Warfieldian (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marcelo bordon s1.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely own work. Low resolution image, the uploader's other uploads have all been copyvios. January (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FlowerHill.jpg

[edit]

This is a confusing situation. The license is noted as CC-BY 2.5, which the link says, but the author says that the purpose of the image is for Wikipedia use and family research. That sounds at best contradictory, and it doesn't sound like he is allowing it for general public use. Tried contacting the author but could not find a way to. Wizardman 19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Women Matter - Vodacom Foundation Billboard - Namanga District - Dar es Salaam - Tanzania.jpg

[edit]

Based on http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=179714 (page 40), it seems that Tanzania only has FOP for audiovisual and video recordings but not for photos. I suspect that this isn't permanently installed either. Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:German Olympic Games decoration.jpg

[edit]

Thats not own wok by the uploade as stated. JuTa 20:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:German Olympic Games decoration in years 1936-1945.jpg

[edit]

Thats not own work by the uploader as stated. JuTa 20:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gentleman.jpg

[edit]

That does not look like own work by the uploader as stated. JuTa 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Emeraldbuddha1.jpg

[edit]

Scanned from a book / duplicated of fair use image on th.wikipedia (https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%8C:Emeraldbuddha1.jpg) / low resolution - can be replaced by many others taweethaも (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Andres Ciro Martinez en un concierto..jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work. No metadata, file appears in a 2010 YouTube video [5] Savhñ 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KingOrry (II)..jpg

[edit]

Taken from http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/IOMSP1.html#anchor1572524; although the uploader states ineligible (the card may be out of copyright), he is unlikely to have scanned to the identical file published on that site. Finavon (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CiroYLosPersasViajeAlCentrodeLaLuna2011.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work. Appears on a forum published previously. Savhñ 21:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Villa Natacha.jpg

[edit]

This house has been designed by Henri Sauvage (1873-1932) and Charles Sarazin (1873-1950). As both of the authors are not dead since more of 70 years, it can't be considered as free. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this picture should be deleted. Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Las Presas.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/478102/0/gallardon/madrid/rio/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/07/10/980669.jpg = last modified: 10.07.2009, see also file path) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=31954436&postcount=11 (08.02.2009) = http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g35/actualizacionesmadrid1/pasarelasfuncionalesB.jpg (last modified: 02.2009) or http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s88/actualizacionesmadrid4/pasarelasfuncionalesB.jpg (last modified: 06.2008) and most likely grabbed somewhere from the designer of this architecural study. Gunnex (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Guilmet, pitching for the Indians- 2013-09-30 18-26.jpg

[edit]

Uploader is not copyright owner -- see http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/relief-pitcher-preston-guilmet-of-the-cleveland-indians-news-photo/179378085 discospinster (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Danny Salazar, pitching for the Cleveland Indians- 2013-09-30 18-21.jpg

[edit]

Uploader is not copyright owner -- see http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/fantasy-roto-arcade/closing-time-ok-danny-salazar-attention-041626364.html discospinster (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Compañía de Jesús.CASCO ANTIIGUO.jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:-العالم الفقيه الشيخ احمد رفاعي شماع - Dr- Sheikh Ahmad Shammaa-الشيخ أحمد رفاعي شماع -العالم العامل المفسر المحدث الفقيه الحن 2013-09-30 15-47.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely "{{Own}}". Leyo 14:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:I am deena devan da 2013-09-30 22-02.jpg

[edit]

out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OREGON CITY OREGON CARNEGIE LIBRARY copy.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyright violation. The attribution impressed in the image itself does not match the user name of the uploader. This does not necessarily make it a copyvio, but does introduce doubt – especially given that the uploader has exactly one contribution in her/his history, which is this upload. I'm putting this proposed deletion forward for the community to discuss whether the precautionary principle should apply. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has contacted OTRS (Template:OTRS ticket). I have advised them to communicate appropriate permission to OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I like the photo and was hoping a way could be found to guarantee its acceptabillity. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per OTRS ticket 2013100210013475 Jcb (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Antara yang asli dan yang palsu--- 2013-09-30 18-12.jpg

[edit]

The source of these portraits is unclear and the title (in Indonesian) appears to be offensive. I propose policy based deletion under both the precautionary principle and respect for the individuals. Fæ (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:כנס מדברים סביבה במגזר החרדי.JPG

[edit]

Dubious "own work". Probably stolen from http://charedim.webix.me/index.asp 91.66.153.214 10:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 05:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Шевченко 6666.JPG

[edit]

recent public 3d artwork. No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Warfieldian (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 05:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SOSO街景视图覆盖的地区.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:SOSO街景覆盖地区.png Liangent (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: not an exact dup Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SOSO街景视图覆盖的地区.png

[edit]

Dupe of File:SOSO街景视图覆盖地区图.png Liangent (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 07:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:腾讯SOSO街景视图覆盖地区2.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:SOSO街景覆盖地区.png Liangent (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: duplicate already deleted Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:腾讯SOSO街景视图覆盖地区2.png

[edit]

Dupe of File:SOSO街景视图覆盖地区图.png Liangent (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 07:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:President Barack Obama delivers a speech at the Parliament House in New Delhi, India, Nov. 8, 2010.jpg

[edit]

Read the copyright information in the EXIF info. This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

Doesn't sound like this allows release to Commons Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. All the disclaimers in the world can't override 17 U.S.C. § 105. I'd consider them non-copyright restrictions if it weren't for the fact that they appear in a metadata field called "copyright holder" for a public domain work; as it stands, they're nothing but copyfraud. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep As per LX Perumalism Chat 11:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think his argument was a bit harsh. I prefer the rationale closer to http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, which is linked directly from the source of this image at the official WH flickr account. Note the last paragraph. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We have a written permission to use this file. Unintended copyfraud does not affect this permission. McZusatz (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ellora03-sachin.jpg

[edit]

Image watermark suggests copyvio. Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A likely source is this blog post, dated 2009. I am deleting a copy of the image from en.wiki (en:File:Ellorasachin 03.jpg) . -- Diannaa (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That forum post isn't the original source as the person who wrote it uploaded images with lots of different website watermarks. The image must be a copyvio in that forum post. However, the forum post confirms that our copy also is a copyvio. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Accu4all (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of advertisement, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept:Looks like advertisement but also seems to be own work (CGI) and is in com:scope (used in articles) McZusatz (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gallito (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. All files uploaded in 04./05.2008, mostly thumbnails (highest res: 336x431), around 15 files at this time already deleted (copyvio, etc.).

Additional info:

Gunnex (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by I'll Always Remember You (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of fan/promo photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jazzua (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope

Trex2001 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Van door (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to these, uploaded after request was opened:

Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ABM Mohsin.jpg

[edit]

and File:Dr. ABM Mohsin.png

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Merkur Samopostrežba v Murski Soboti 1961.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 15:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot spot anything which could be copyrighted on this photo. --Sporti (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, copyrighted building. Taivo (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (5).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the Triple Bridge by J. Plečnik (d. 1957) is still copyrighted and not de minimis: the image would be significantly different without it. Eleassar (t/p) 12:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Making the image "significantly different" is not an argument in determining whether an object is de minimis or not. Using valid arguments at COM:De minimis, the image should be kept. — Yerpo Eh? 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the image would be even radically different, although in my opinion, 'significant' is enough to make this image non-free. In addition, the building on the left side is copyrighted too. What valid arguments? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Botha are small parts of a larger work (=likely DM). The whole guideline you refer to reads "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Taking a part out of the context and using it in a discussion isn't exactly honest, and definitely not valid. — Yerpo Eh? 12:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are key parts of the subject, and the derivative work would be radically different without them. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not, they are equally important as the other elements of composition (i.e. not more important). — Yerpo Eh? 12:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are still key parts. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose their position is such that they could be cropped and still leave the image marginally useful, but that's an argument for editing, not deleting. — Yerpo Eh? 13:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for deleting the original version. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree. The bridge is in the front and well visible. Also the description at the source page states: "The postcard depicts the Triple Bridge with St. Mary's Square." --Eleassar (t/p) 14:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, copyrighted bridge. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paris Louvre PA00085992 02 JPM.JPG & File:Paris Louvre PA00085992 04 JPM.JPG

[edit]

La pyramide est l’œuvre de Ieoh Ming Pei qui est toujours en vie ; son œuvre n’est donc pas encore entrée dans le domaine public. De plus, il n’y a pas de liberté de panorama en France / No FOP in France. Trizek from FR 13:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, unfortunately, can not be kept since there is no freedom of panorama in France--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Ellis Park Stadium

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Free State Stadium

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 15:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Peter Mokaba Stadium

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Peter Mokaba Stadium

[edit]

works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

LGA talkedits 07:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The architecture here seems de minimis to me, that's why I did not include them in the previous DR. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ticks most of the tests for not DM in that :
  1. Both are used to illustrate the stadium
  2. Both are categorised to the stadium
  3. The stadium is named in the filenames of both
  4. Both use the stadium name in the description
therefore the Stadium is not DM and if the stadium is not nor is the architecture. LGA talkedits 09:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the images depict the stadium. The goal and the grass are also part of the stadium, they can still be used to depict it, but they're not copyrightable. The stands (that's what I had in mind as architecture) however are in the background and do not differ from any other standard stands. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP in South Africa -FASTILY 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by LiveYoung1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by LiveYoung1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of fan/promo photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small files with no metadata. Taivo (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Puente oblicuo.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/478102/0/gallardon/madrid/rio/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/07/10/980668.jpg = last modified: 10.07.2009, see also file path) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=31954436&postcount=11 (08.02.2009) = http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g35/actualizacionesmadrid1/pasarelaPuenteOblicuo.jpg (last modified: 02.2009) or http://imageshack.us/a/img524/2237/oblicuocl5.jpg (last modified: 2008) and most likely grabbed somewhere from the designer of this architecural study. Gunnex (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC). PS: Btw: via http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/980668 no credits - normally "Foto: 20minutos.es". Gunnex (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating also:

Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las Presas.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: Gunnex (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Saint Mark mosaic, Chapel of Unity, Coventry Cathedral.jpg

[edit]

Mosaic looks recent and therefore might be still copyrighted. Also, mosaics are likely not covered by freedom-of-panorama exemption of the U.K. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This listing at English Heritage notes the mosaic artist as Swedish artist Einar Forseth. The mosaic was donated by "the people of Sweden" (found here), I would assume at the time of construction (1951-62). --NoahLovesNesquick (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: as per [6]. Yann (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I consulted Túrelio's link and found, that the photo must be deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Loftus Versfeld

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlike other FIFA World Cup stadia, this is not purpose-built for FIFA World Cup not it was significantly rebuilt. This stadium was built in 1906, current stands were built between 1923 and 1928, some of them were expanded in 1948. With 50 years pma term in South Africa this nomination definitely needs further justification, at least I would like a nominator to provide which copyrighted features were added recently and when their architects died (or if they are alive) — NickK (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia states "It has been upgraded on several occasions, most recently in 1984, when the Northern Pavilion received an upgrade." Per COM:EVID, it is the uploader who provides evidence that the infrastructure depicted on images has not been added only recently. It seems recent. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can see the picture of this stadium in 1979. All notable architectural features look completely similar to the current state. COM:EVID do require providing relevant source and author: for all photos those are correctly provided. Here you state that uploading these images is a copyright violation - please do state whose copyright are violating those images. I can reasonably assume that this stadium is 1923 or 1928 work and hence is in public domain per South African law. I do not find any other information on this, so please do provide why you think these files are violating architect's copyright — NickK (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:EVID states: " If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:" Therefore, it is evident that the architecture is modern. The question is who was the architect and when did he die. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided you an evidence that at least by 1979 the stadium was identical to the current look. For me, the stadium like very similar to British stadia rebuilt in 1930s or 1950s, with rather messy stand layout caused by gradual updates. If the name of the architect is unknown, how I can prove that he died before 1963 (South African 50 years pma, URAA is irrelevant as US has FOP for buildings)? And how pictures can violate copyright of an unknown architect whose year of death is unknown? I do understand the case of modern stadia (1990s or 2000s) where an architect or a group of architects can be clearly identified, one can contact the architects and/or request an OTRS permission. I do not understand the case of 1923 stadium refurbished about 1948 without any known architect: even having a great will to get an OTRS permission I cannot do it, as there is no way to contact an unidentified person — NickK (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't identify the architect or the year of his death, images of the architecture can't be hosted at Commons, because it is then a typical en:orphan work. What you can do is transfer the image to local Wikipedias in accordance with their EDPs ("fair use") and to the English Wikipedia using the template en:Template:FoP-USonly. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been true for a recent work. Here we are dealing with 1923 or 1948 work, which can largely be considered public domain according to South African law. If the images of this stadium will be deleted because the pictured stadium is still copyright protected, a relevant category Undelete in (year) should be added, providing the year when the copyright expires. Thus please provide when, according to your sources, the copyright on this work will expire — NickK (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, this is building from 1923–28, not 1984. But I could not know, who is the architect, and therefore it is not sure, that he died before 1943. Stadium architects are typically young men, so he could live 40–50 years more. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
1943 is irrelevant here: South Africa has copyright term of 50 years pma ({{PD-South-Africa}}), and URAA is irrelevant here as FOP does exist in USA, thus the architect had to die before 1963, which is much more likely. The only source I have found states that architect may be en:Gerard Moerdijk (died 1958, which is ok, as 1958+50+1<2013), but I am not sure this source is reliable enough. If a stadium is an "artistic work", it is in public domain as a work created under the direction of the state published 50 years ago ({{PD-South-Africa}}, all sources confirm that Pretoria City Counsil directed the construction) — NickK (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read this in the source; it only states that an inn built by this architect is in the vicinity. This source states the names of some of the architects, but doesn't state who built this stadium. As to the year, I agree that the copyright term is 50 years p.m.a., but 1963 is still in the range of 40-50 years. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why can't we consider this a work created under the direction of the state? — NickK (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From UDR:'

It was determined in the deletion request that this stadium is a 1923–28 work by an unknown architect. However, wrongly a 70 years pma term was applied instead of South African copyright law. According to South African copyright law any building is an "artistic work" (see definition of an "artistic work"). This stadium was created under the direction of Pretoria City Council in 1923–28 and thus falls under {{PD-South-Africa}} (an artistic, literary or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the year the work was published), as 50 years have passed since "publication". Thus this stadium is in public domain under {{PD-South-Africa}} and its photos should be undeleted — NickK (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to my researches South African courts use a very broad definition of "the State", including all local governments and all governmental organisations. An extreme case can be found here, where it is stated that even a printer of local council is considered part of "the State". This article also provides summary of previous court decisions: courts have never accepted arguments that a governmental organisation is not a part of "the State", the only discussions were on whether "the State" could really control the creation of the work. Here all the sources state that it was Pretoria City Council that effectively erected the stadium, thus it is clear that "the State" had a real control over this project — NickK (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per NickK's arguments. Yann (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Lukasrand Tower

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 16:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a legal opinion about this from two South African legal experts, and will report back shortly. JMK (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Received two short replies, but I asked for, and was promised a further and more detailed reply. The first reply was that there must be some counterweight to this legal requirement, possibly in the constitution. The second, from a person who is also a photographer, was that I should rather not upload this type of photo. But he would also consult his colleagues on the matter. Personally I'm worried about the precedent and the number of photos it could affect. I definitely see similar photos in our daily newspapers, that were acquired from agents who are certainly deriving an income from it. JMK (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. I'm not sure about South Africa, but at least in some countries, news organisations may reuse images of copyrighted objects freely in reporting about daily news. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, there have been enough time for consultations and researches. If copyright holders send OTRS-permission, the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mgossipsweetdreams (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering also User talk:Mgossipsweetdreams, full of advices about copyvios/DR/no-permission-deleted files related to the Spanis actress "Anna Allen". Instead of counter-arguing, the user kept uploading images with uncertain copyright status. Additionally, File:ANNA ALLEN ANTIGONA SIGLO XXI 06.jpg is most likely an unsourced film screenshot (btw, cropped, as there are full framed versions circulating, e.g. http://ito.site11.com/ito_AnnaAllen01@LaAntigonaDelSigloXXI01.jpg or http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zdMuOji4USI/UCirpJ8ICOI/AAAAAAAAKrA/TSNr4323hDw/s1600/ANNA%2BALLEN%2B-%2BANT%25C3%258DGONA%2BDEL%2BSIGLO%2BXXI%2B%25282011%2529%2B04.jpg

Gunnex (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Facultad de derecho UMSS.JPG

[edit]

me equivoque de archivo Melissaisis (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Es una pena no dejar el fichero, pero como quieras. Platonides (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 12:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The architecture on this one is clearly de minimis. — Yerpo Eh? 12:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is very unlikely DM: the image would be radically different without the architecture. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a small part of a larger work (=likely DM). The whole guideline you refer to reads "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Taking a part out of the context and using it in a discussion isn't exactly honest. — Yerpo Eh? 12:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a key part of the subject, and the derivative work would be radically different without it. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the key part of the subject (the subject being Ljubljanica with trees), especially not each individual building. — Yerpo Eh? 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entire complex has most likely been built as part of a single project and, in my opinion, it is the key part. I almost can't see the Ljubljanica in this image. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ljubljanica and the trees takes more than half of the image, most of the rest is sky. The complex is in the background, i.e. a clear case of secondary importance. — Yerpo Eh? 13:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I almost can't see the Ljubljanica. The complex is in the background, but still not of secondary importance. We may only discuss whether it is a key part or the key part... --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal interpretation of the phrase "key part" is of marginal importance here. Objective facts all point to the secondary importance of the buildings (being in background, partly covered with trees, and a small part of the composition). — Yerpo Eh? 13:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image would be radically different without the buildings, that's what makes the complex a key part. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject would still be there, unchanged, so no. Your interpretation negates the very principle of de minimis, which is a good indicator that it isn't useful for this case. — Yerpo Eh? 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the main subject would still be there. Per COM:DM: "Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." The derivative work is the photograph, not the subject, and the photograph would be radically different. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are edits that could be made without radically changing the photograph, such as cloning out the buildings (quite noticeable, I agree, but not "radical", because they're in the background). That makes them de minimis. — Yerpo Eh? 14:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings are the contrast of the embankments: they are colourful and a human artefact. The image would certainly be radically different without them. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's your opinion against mine, then, the concluding administrator will have to decide. I can only stand by my assessment, and hope that objective arguments will prevail. — Yerpo Eh? 19:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that the policy will prevail, which states: "In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buildings at the centre of the photo are clearly not de minimis as they appear to be the main focus of the image, but how about COM:TOO? Are the buildings copyrightable in the first place? At least the exterior looks very simple. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one really knows, because there is no evidence of any threshold of originality in Slovenia. We have had a similar example at COM:UDR#Savsko naselje.JPG, where the nominator claimed that the architecture [7] was below the threshold of originality, but it has turned out that it is quite original and protected as a cultural monument due to this and its prominence in the cityscape. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: This is a very close call. I don't agree with Stefan about TOO -- there is no evidence that there is any TOO for architecture anywhere. I do think however, that this is an image of the snowy trees and the canal, and the buildings are very much secondary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the monument by I. Zajec (d. 1952) is still copyrighted and it is not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 12:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, monument is de minimis. — Yerpo Eh? 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unlikely DM: the image would be radically different without it. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a small part of a larger work (=likely DM). The whole guideline you refer to reads "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Taking a part out of the context and using it in a discussion isn't exactly honest. — Yerpo Eh? 12:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a key part of the subject, and the derivative work would be radically different without it. You should not go so low as to accuse me of being dishonest (unless you are). --Eleassar (t/p) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the key part of the subject, the composition is such that it's equally important as the other structures pictured. And I'm sorry, but I do believe that using parts of rules out of context is a form of dishonesty. — Yerpo Eh? 12:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the key part, it is a key part. I've cited the part that seems relevant to me, and assuming bad faith is good for no one. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming, but observing. Cropping out the statue would definitely make the image useless. — Yerpo Eh? 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm observing too. You're assuming bad faith and it is certainly possible to crop the image so that the monument is not a key part anymore. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what would remain? A cut pharmacy building which is practically useless. — Yerpo Eh? 13:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the entire pharmacy and Trubar Street. Part of the monument would still be visible, but it would not be a key part anymore. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the statue can safely be regarded as accessory to the main subject (i.e. the square), as recognized in relevant court cases. The composition is wide enough. — Yerpo Eh? 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any rationale for the statement that the square is the main subject? The square around the statue is quite pale, even black and white, whereas the monument is vivid and in the focus. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any rationale... You mean beside the title and the motif? "Square" doesn't just mean the pavement, but also all the objects around that define it. — Yerpo Eh? 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in this case the key objects are the pharmacy and the statue. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as in the case of Louvre plaza mentioned below. — Yerpo Eh? 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, because here, "the square around the statue is quite pale, even black and white, whereas the monument is vivid and in the focus." I have not spotted this would be the case with File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pharmacy building (which is a part of the square) for example is far from being pale and out of focus, and has a much more prominent role in this image than the statue. All the other elements are also equally elaborate. Because of this and the wide composition, the square as a whole is the subject and each individual element is accessory. As is the case in the Louvre plaza (the lower third of the image which shows the floor is quite boring, but that obviously wasn't important). — Yerpo Eh? 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the pharmacy and the statue, I've already pointed them out as key objects above. The two images would be comparable in the case that in the Louvre image, the pyramid would be green and the surrounding buildings would be black and white. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pyramid with its clean geometric shape stands out quite prominently, despite being transparent... Even more audaciously on this apparently non-problematic image. — Yerpo Eh? 08:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, however here we have another problem. Whereas the pyramid is located in the centre of the square and there is no option to photograph the entire square without it, in this case one would not have to put the monument in the center and could still get a very usable photo of the pharmacy or the square. In addition, whereas in the cited image the pyramid and the square are both similarly illuminated, here only the central elements are displayed in colour whereas the rest is more or less black and white. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De minimis refers to each particular depiction, not all the potential depictions that could be made of the same subject. And no, it isn't possible to have a useable photo of the square without the statue occupying a prominent position within it - at least not from this perspective. So it's exactly the same case as the Louvre pyramid, regardless of the degree of one specific detail (such as the colour). It should be noted that even some details outside of the main subjects are also quite elaborately worked out, such as the colourful Ljubljanica with its banks. — Yerpo Eh? 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this was true, we would not delete images because of "the object was included on purpose; the photographer could have easily stepped two meters to the left" rationales etc. I think this specific detail (colour) gives a very specific emphasis on certain elements of the image and denotes them as the key elements. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true in this particular case, regardless of colours. If the rationale that you mention was really used (I can't find any discussion with those phrases), it was likely an abuse of copyright, or a case where the copyrighted object was obviously "out of place". — Yerpo Eh? 14:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more willing to accept the de minimis argument if the image was black and white without the colours. It was not exactly these words, but see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kropa view at the settlement 21082009 03.jpg etc. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find the closing admin's conclusion dodgy (in light of the argument above), but he also said that the copyrighted work was "the focus". As with the COM:DM guidelines, the comment should only be taken as a whole, because each part separately can be interpreted much more broadly. Of course, the example is not very useful if we can't see the image. — Yerpo Eh? 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't quite remember it, but it proves that we do consider whether an image is de minimis or not also by the possibility to choose another position to take the photo. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I argued before, it's always possible to choose another position to take a photo, so that obviously can't be a distinguishing criterion. I don't know who is "we" that you refer to, but you and User:Jameslwoodward don't constitute a community. — Yerpo Eh? 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"So that obviously can't be a distinguishing criterion..." I've just provided a case where this obviously was a distinguishing criterion. Why do you therefore continue to say that it is not? That 'we' includes the community as a whole - Jim is an administrator and therefore a representative of the community, who has been elected in a democratic process. His decision still applies and is thus still a valid example. If you think that it was incorrect, you should clearly say so and demand undeletion of the photo at COM:UDR. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be a distinguishing criterion where the copyrighted work is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work (in this case the statue on the square, where the purpose was obviously to depict the square with its surroundings), i.e. likely DM. Jim may be an admin, but that doesn't make his decisions the law to be applied to all pseudo-related situations. The copyrighted work may have been the integral part of the depicted scene or not, which is why I'm not prepared to waste time and energy to have it undeleted, but I still think that Jim used an irrelevant argument. — Yerpo Eh? 13:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring this case up to directly apply it to this situation, but to prove that the position can be and has been a distinguishing criterion. In relation to this: you said that it is not possible to take a useable photo of the square without the statue occupying a prominent position within it. You may compare the image to this or this image, which were taken from a similar perspective and where the monument is indeed de minimis. It is clear that this position was chosen on purpose to put emphasis on the statue. In addition, don't forget that the colour gives a very specific emphasis to it. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an action was (possibly) justified, that doesn't make an accompanying argument relevant. The two images you posted have a quite different perspective, whereas the statue is a bit less prominent, but not much - on both it is in dead center (a "specific emphasis" by your standards) and on the second one, it only seems insignificant because the whole picture is so small. As much emphasis as it is given by the color on the postcard we're discussing. They're all de minimis. — Yerpo Eh? 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The action was justified by the accompanying argument, therefore the argument is relevant. Surely they have a bit different perspective, but the reason for the perspective of the discussed photo was to show in detail the pharmacy and the monument. Yes, the statue is in the center, and things in the center are clearly in the focus. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the argument was false (as I explained), only the action might have been justified by the guidelines. I suppose we'll find out when we achieve FOP in Slovenia. As for your guessing about the reasoning of the long-dead artist, believe me, it's not even amusing, and the statue is still de minimis, regardless of it. So can we please stop with this nonsense now? You almost made me cease caring if this image gets deleted unnecessarily at the end. Almost. — Yerpo Eh? 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the end it's up to the concluding administrator if the image is kept or deleted. I still think the statue is not de minimis, for the reasons described above, and I don't see why the argument would be false. Yes, the reasoning of the artist is unknown, but from the composition of the image it seems likely that the perspective was chosen by purpose, not by chance. In the end, the source page also states: "Prešeren Square with Prešeren Monument" and goes to describe the significance of France Prešeren... Please also consider that the photo was made in 1905, in the time when the monument was unveiled (this happened in September that year). --Eleassar (t/p) 20:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective of course wasn't chosen by "chance", as is the case of all visual creative works. De minimis also doesn't mean that the work can't be quite useful for illustrating the copyrighted object. My argument is elsewhere, I hope it's clear enough for the concluding admin, at least, because I won't repeat it again. — Yerpo Eh? 05:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that per COM:DM: "In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. ... If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." I've described the reason to believe that the photograph was taken in the first place because of the monument. This is also supported by the chosen perspective and colourisation. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the perspective is far too wide to suggest the statue was the primary reason for making this picture instead of the view towards the east across the square as a whole. The statue also doesn't stand out in any way compared to multiple other objects (both foreground and background, both in focus and out of it) that are colourised. — Yerpo Eh? 09:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statue has been put in the center and thus in the focus, and the periphery is much less colourised than the center. Although it is possible to argue about any of them, in my opinion, these three mentioned things (the year when the photo was taken, the perspective and the colourisation) in combination constitute a significant doubt that the image was not created in order to reproduce the monument and thus that the monument is de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A) the statue isn't in the center, but offset.
B) the statue isn't less colourised than the periphery (note the Ljubljanica river, its banks, and the buildings on the right - Ljubljanica is here by far the most striking element if we only judge by the colour).
Leaving the year, which is obviously not enough for any "significant doubt". — Yerpo Eh? 13:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statue is offset, because the photographer decided to also include Trubar Street, but it's still roughly in the center.
The statue and the pharmacy are not less colourised, but more colourised than the perifery. Ok, Ljubljanica is colourised too, but is this of any significance?
By the way, per en:Prešeren Monument: "The monument was ceremonially unveiled on 10 September 1905. Over 20,000 people were present. The ceremonial speech was read by Ivan Tavčar. A biography of Prešeren with some of his poems was published by Engelbert Gangl on the occasion" As you may see, this was a very big deal at that time, and people were very proud of the monument. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they are less colourised, I said that they aren't (significantly) more colourised. So this argument of yours doesn't hold. Further hair-splitting won't contribute anything to this discussion. The statue is near the center of the image because it's near the center of the square - the artist simply reflected this arrangement, which proves that the square as a whole is the primary subject, and the statue is an accessory one. — Yerpo Eh? 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to black and white parts, which tend to be in the periphery, they are significantly more colourised; and if the artist wanted to depict the square as the primary subject, he did a mistake, because he left out a major part of it - compare the image to [8], [9] or [10]. Therefore, this is very doubtful. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, people are still proud of the monument, but that doesn't make all panoramic photographs of the square non-free. — Yerpo Eh? 14:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people are still proud of the monument, but have I said that they are not? However, it is not a sensation anymore like it was in September 1905. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what your point is, but your imaginary interpretation of the author's desires is simply much too far-fetched to be useful in this discussion (this refers to the other comment as well). There is a good legal precedent (albeit foreign) that favours my argument, and with absence of other relevant grounding, such fantasying is a waste of time. So again, can we please stop with this nonsense? You made your point and I made mine, no further twisting of words will be of any use. — Yerpo Eh? 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're out of arguments and losing nerves... Yes, we may stop with this discussion. However, the point is that I at least have offered a completely sensible interpretation, based on the analysis of the image and the historic context, even if you call it fantasying and far-fetched. What have you offered? A refuted argument and a reference to a judgement from a foreign country that you don't know and understand, but would like to apply it to this superficially similar case, though it is in fact quite dissimilar. In my opinion, this and your attitude raises a doubt significant enough that the image is free. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but the only thing I'm losing my nerves over is your stubbornness in wanting to get this image deleted no matter what. Your interpretation ("the motif is the statue with the pharmacy") is, taken very optimistically, roughly equivalent to mine ("the motif is the general view across the Prešeren Square towards the east"). This optimistic comparison alone proves that the copyrighted work may be regarded as accessory to the overall purpose of the work. So my argument is far from refuted, and the foreign judgement is the only relevant comparison we have. The case is practically the same, despite you claiming otherwise (an object standing out because of its geometry is just as visually distinct as the one standing out because of its colour). — Yerpo Eh? 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get this image deleted no matter what, but have a strong impression that you want to keep it no matter what and from your previous comments, that you even don't care much about the image but more about winning the debate... "The copyrighted work may be regarded as accessory" is not the same as "the copyrighted work is accessory", so my argument about COM:PRP is far from refuted, and Stefan4 mentions another foreign judgement that may be relevant. The object in the French photo stands out of its actual geometry, whereas this object does not stand out because of its actual colour, but because of the later colourisation, even though it approximates the actual colour. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
does not stand out because of its actual colour Wrong. The statue, when it was new (as you pointed out), must've been quite dazzling - bright white stones and shiny bronze surfaces, unlike today when it's oxidized and stained. So the artist reflected the reality, not enhanced it.
you even don't care much about the image but more about winning the debate Your approach looks a lot like that, too, so you shouldn't be too quick in pointing fingers. But just to clarify, this particular image is indeed of secondary importance, I'm primarily concerned about freedom of expression in our country, which is hampered in part by overly zealous law-makers and law-interpreters, not having anything to do with legitimate author interest (especially in this case, where the author is long dead). — Yerpo Eh? 09:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the original photo was evidently black-and-white, and why did the artist reflect the reality just in some parts of the image? Even on the monument itself, I guess that the side reliefs by Zajec were also shining, yet they have not been colourised. Is this an authentic reflection of reality?
What you saw is what you get: you have been the first to accuse me of "not being exactly honest" and of "stubbornness in wanting to get this image deleted no matter what", so you should be more understanding about pointing fingers.
As to your reason of arguing here, you should pursue the freedom of expression elsewhere, Commons with its strict policies is probably not the best place to do this. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your overly-stretched interpretations which (in my opinion) don't constitute a significant doubt may have quite real consequences someday (for example, if the lawmaker decides to gauge the public opinion about FOP or de minimis and finds this prominent forum), so it's not self-serving if I pursue it here (within guidelines, of course). — Yerpo Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is really too far-fetched. If anything at all, he will find and base his opinion on the discussions in Slovene in Wikipedia. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use it as an argument for keeping this image. — Yerpo Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you did use it to accuse me of doing harm. Even if it is completely disconnected from reality. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - it is similar case to Commons:De_minimis#An_example_under_Civil_Law. --Sporti (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited photograph was taken in France, and it is not a copyright violation since "it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid". This photograph was taken in Slovenia and it is not of the entire plaza, but of the part with the pharmacy and the monument. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't have any. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we don't have any court cases about "copyright infridgments" when it comes to old postcards.The postcard itself is not problematic (it has long been in public domain), and if it wasn't a copyright infridgement back then (there was FOP in Austria-Hungary), why would it be problematic now. I am agsinst cropping, I consider it as a "rape" of the original artist's work - photographs only work as a whole. --Miha (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this issue here. I have to agree with the opinion of User:Stefan4: "One could say that the old law didn't protect the 2D representation of buildings and that the new law didn't restore this protection, but I think that we are stepping into uncertain parts of COM:PCP here and that it would be better to await court rulings on the matter". In that discussion, I have also specified the reasons why I believe the current copyright law would most probably apply.[11] We have yet to see some evidence that these postcards would really be considered free, otherwise this defaults to COM:PRP.
What makes you think that there was FOP in Austria-Hungary? And why do you think the Austria-Hungary copyright law and not the modern copyright law would apply in Slovenia? This is bizzare... Your opinion that cropping public domain images is a kind of raping is also bizzare. It seems that your opinion is that these images should be considered copyrighted (protected by moral rights) forever... --Eleassar (t/p) 11:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should claim that Austria-Hungary had FOP without first checking that; laws may have changed at any point in the history. For example, COM:FOP#Sweden was changed in 1960. Before the 1960 copyright act, Swedish architecture FOP only covered the exterior of buildings, but the 1960 copyright act extended this to also cover the interior of buildings.
This is one of those ambiguous cases. It would seem to be OK under the French Louvre example, but the Swedish "thumbnail case" set a threshold which was a lot higher: the de minimis artwork must not be important to the image in any way. In this case, removing the artwork would create a significant change to the image and would therefore not count as de minimis under Swedish law. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Based on the scarce sources about de minimis from Slovenia, it seems that only those works that are not a significant element of a work and have occured in it by chance [12] ("the work appears accidentaly, like a marginal accessory, e.g. a visual work in the background of a film shot") [13] ("images in a hotel room, a movie shot where by chance a music hit is heard in the background"), count as de minimis. This seems closer to the Swedish than the French example. I hope more detailed information will gradually become available. However, it is clear that in this image, the monument is not present just by chance. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scarce sources you quote only mention de minimis very passingly, using the most obvious examples possible, so their explanation cannot be taken as definitive. The wording of the law itself - "may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance" (emphasis mine, see also the comment above) is quite broad. So we have nothing to base significant doubt on, therefore I suggest we wait until a relevant court case appears and only delete obvious violations until then. If/when the situation is clarified, we will act accordingly. — Yerpo Eh? 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that may in the original version of the article: "Tista objavljena dela, ki so nebistvena pritiklina..." - i.e. "Those published works that are an inessential accessory..." To state that the statue is inessential in this image is in contrast with with the fact that removing it would create a significant change to the image. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: what you wrote is not fact, but a lay opinion (including your lay translation of the law which is different from the official translation - even if the Slovene version is the one that counts, the translation indicates what exactly does it mean). — Yerpo Eh? 08:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the translation differs in such a fundamental thing that it say "may be" where the original says "are", we have to assume that it is an incorrect translation and we must give priority to the original. Translators are not copyright experts and the translation has no legal binding, whereas the original does have it. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is clear that the sources are scarce and the mention of de minimis is very passing, but they still at least point the direction of how we should think about these things. To assume that de minimis should be considered more widely in regard to the Slovene copyright law is purely your own belief, based on no reliable source whatsoever. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An official translation is an official document, so more relevant than passing mentions in non-specific powerpoint presentations. — Yerpo Eh? 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation that because the translation says "may be", this means that "are" in the original should be interpreted as "may be" and this is legally binding, is your own original synthesis. The courts don't use translations in the interpretation of the law, but they do use opinions of copyright experts. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I had said, please don't twist my words. I just said that it's an indication of what the lawmaker meant, and a better one than a passing mention by an outsider. — Yerpo Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt that this translation in any way indicates what the lawmaker meant. Any evidence for this? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an official document has nothing to do with the lawmaker's intentions... — Yerpo Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The translation has not been prepared by the lawmaker, and the executive branch of the state is separated from the legislative one, so yes, there is no evidence of the relation. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would a Slovenian court argue in a potential de minimis case? Swedish courts typically refer to parliament propositions and previous court cases, which may contain additional information. Would it help to look up the parliament proposition which established the current de minimis clause? --Stefan4 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's anybody's guess, as far as we know, no related official material is available. — Yerpo Eh? 08:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep images based on guesses. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are also not useful for basing "significant doubt" on. — Yerpo Eh? 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that for you, the statement that removing the artwork would create a significant change to the image is "just a guess"; and an interpretation founded on the perspective, the colourisation and the historical circumstances is also "an unfounded interpretation". Are you not a bit biased? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, on both counts. I'm not any more biased as you are. — Yerpo Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having confirmed this. Well, in contrast to you with a hidden (now disclosed) agenda, Stefan4 and me have come here solely to enforce the rules of the project. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find comparing yourself with Stefan4 rather distasteful... — Yerpo Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not comparing myself to anyone; I just stated why I have come here. I strictly recommend the closing administrator to read your comments in the light of your statement that "this particular image is indeed of secondary importance, I'm primarily concerned about freedom of expression in our country..." Not to say that you have stopped assuming good faith...and have without any particular reason characterised mine words as dishonest and distasteful. This really tells more about you than about me. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The part "without any particular reason" is, in light of the prolonged discussion we had (and others in DR), quite off the mark. It's exactly this kind of flawed logic you regularly use that made me believe you're being unconstructive to the point of being overtly disruptive (the opinion I share with a good part of the slwiki's community) - this DR included. Pursuing freedom of expression is in line with the Foundation's goal (sharing free knowledge), so I don't see any reason why this "revelation" should be used against me, as long as I observe the guidelines and laws. Which I do, I just try to find their interpretation that is compatible with this project's main goal, wherever possible. You do, too, but you always insist on an interpretation that's against this goal. See the problem?
So I will only say this: in absence of any relevant court cases or specific expert opinions that would shed some light on what "may be regarded as accessory" or "is an inessential accessory" means, we can understand it a bit more liberally, because a mere suspicion that we can't isn't a "significant doubt", nor does it represent a significant risk for commercial reusers. — Yerpo Eh? 14:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two or more roughly equally possible explanations, in my opinion, there is still a very significant possibility that the worse one is correct, and it is worth pursuing the Foundation's goals, however this should not be done in the way that you would like to, by simply ignoring the worse option. The rules are clear and they are not based on the fear that commercial reusers may get sued, but on the principle that we build a free media repository. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point. The point is, that to the best of our knowledge, those files are free (as per COM:PRP). A significant doubt would exist if, for example, there had been a related court case finding that a depiction is non-DM, or an expert in Slovene copyright law said so. Only that would raise significant doubt over the whole lot of images where the copyrighted objet is similarly prominent. — Yerpo Eh? 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any knowledge, because, as you have just stated, we don't have enough of the relevant information. Your opinion that the file is free is based on FAITH. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's based on the law and the real-life situation. — Yerpo Eh? 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever... What law? Article 52 that you tend to interpret as it is written in the translation, whereas I tend to interpret it as it is written in the original? Nonexistent court case? What real-life situation? --Eleassar (t/p) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I later switched to the original version, so you're a bit off with your critique again. — Yerpo Eh? 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Just four comments above I read "in absence of any relevant court cases or specific expert opinions that would shed some light on what "may be regarded as accessory" or "is an inessential accessory" means". It sounds like you can't decide which version to choose. I'll borrow COBISS 67538432, that book has 472 pages and discusses only the copyright act of Slovenia. It surely contains a commentary of Article 52. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I merely find the difference superficial (because there is nothing to suggest it isn't), but yes, borrow that book, by all means. — Yerpo Eh? 15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the difference between "may be" and "is" is essential, and I would need additional evidence to understand that it is superficial. Anyway, I hope that this source will help us better understand de minimis in Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is getting very messy. If a DM case were to pop up in a Slovenian court, I would assume that the court only cares about the original text in Slovenian and not about some English translation, so if there are differences in the text, then it should be obvious that the Slovenian version takes precedence. I can't read Slovenian, so I don't know what the it says.
I agree that copyright law can do bad things with freedom of speech. A good example is here (in Swedish) about a change in the Swedish law from 2005 where the text "artworks which have been made available to the public may be reprinted in connection to the text of a critical discussion" was changed to "artworks which have been made available to the public may be reprinted in connection to the text of a critical discussion, except in digital form". This makes it impossible to do things on blogs and other websites even if the same thing is permitted when something is printed on paper. However, COM:L suggests that we only care about the copyright law and not about how the copyright law affects other things such as freedom of speech. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We concluded to check what the book Eleassar has found says about the infamous paragraph 52 of the Slovene copyright law. But yes, original version is the definitive one, obviously. — Yerpo Eh? 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It is not possible to take a photo of the square without the monument. This is the usually one key concept in defining "de minimis". Furthermore low quality and low resolution don't allow to get an usable image of the monument by cropping the photo.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is possible to take a photo of the square without the monument being in the centre of the image and coloured, right after it has been unveiled. Second, a crop would be completely usable. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the problem is that de minimis depends on how you intend to use the image. If you use this image in an article about the pharmacy, to show what the pharmacy looks like, then there is probably no problem: the statue is de minimis. On the other hand, if you use the same image in an article about the statue, to show what the statue looks like, then the image is unacceptable. This is a bit problematic with respect to the idea that you should be able to use Commons files for any purpose. Compare with the section COM:DM#Guidelines: in those examples, the copyrighted works are not de minimis because they are specifically discussed in the text surrounding the images. However, in most other contexts, the copyrighted works would be de minimis. It is furthermore questionable whether anything can be de minimis if the template {{De minimis}} is used on the file information page as that template directly brings focus to the copyrighted items. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning about usage makes sense, but stating that anything only can be "de minimis" if {{De minimis}} is not used, is to take the reasoning too far away.
Furthermore, I can't see any usage of this image challenging "de minimis". Not even the title and the description mentions the statue - if I understand them.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been described above: "In the end, the source page also states: "Prešeren Square with Prešeren Monument" and goes to describe the significance of France Prešeren... Please also consider that the photo was made in 1905, in the time when the monument was unveiled (this happened in September that year)." --Eleassar (t/p) 22:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've consulted today the book that I have mentioned. It is a very fine book, with a lot of detail on each of the articles of the copyright act, however very hard to get. In the library I have visited, it was available only for the reading room, whereas in bookstores, it is not possible to buy it, because it has been sold out. Anyway, I have taken some photos with my cell phone of the text that interested me, so here is what is written about de minimis (Article 52):
"I. General: Article 52 wants to prevent that it would be necessary to get a permission from the author also in cases, where his work appears accidentally as an inessential accessory and without any relation to the exploitation of some object or work. This way, the author will not be able to claim his copyrights: if a work of visual arts acccidentally appears in the background of a film scene; if when renting a hotel room, also works of visual arts in it are rented; if when a car is rented, also a computer program for the influx of fuel in this car is rented; if in an exhibition of sceneries, also photographs of sceneries, where actors with author costumes are visible, are displayed etc."
Sections II and III discuss the position of the article in the act and the international law (very briefly), and are not of much interest.
"IV. The Presumptions of Free Usage
1. Published works - the limitation concerns only published works. This emphasises the protection of the moral right of the first publication from Article 17 of ZASP [the copyright act]).
2. Inessential accessory: the term "inessential" means that an author's work is accidentally present by an object or another work. A fleeting observer would not even notice this inessential work, we could without any damage and at will replace it with another work. - The term "accessory" means that an author's work is inessential to an object or another author's work. This is about the inessentiality in the copyright sense, not the functional sense. In this way, for example, the computer program that is part of the rented car, is very significant for the usage of this car, but from the view of the copyright usage, it is of inessential significance."
My opinion: It is clear that this sculpture is not accidentally present and that even a fleeting observer would notice it. We could not easily and without any damage replace it with another work. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this interpretation, the statue may indeed be too prominent to be regarded as DM. However, the interpretation, if taken literally, completely negates the possibility of fixed architectural works being DM (which is unrealistic), and I doubt that the author gave much thought to implications of this paragraph, as indicated also by the extremely short length of the commentary (you said that the whole book has almost 500 pages). This is not to say I object to deletion of this image anymore - looks like we will have to be conservative in our estimates - but the book doesn't reduce the grey area by much. We really need to focus on getting a specific opinion on this question and pushing for FOP in Slovenia. — Yerpo Eh? 12:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the quote well demonstrates that we have to be restrained in our interpretations of the copyright issues. The explanation of the article by Trampuž is specific to the Slovene legislation, and in my opinion, it makes much more sense than the forced application of the French example to the Slovene copyright law. I don't think that it completely negates the possiblity of fixed architectural works. The general idea is the following: when an element is present in the image and it is significant and not accidental, it is not de minimis.[14] If it was somewhere in the background, hardly visible (like NUK or TR3 in this image), it would still be inessential and thus de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 7,000 words here. Don't you have better things to do. No single image is worth this kind of effort. The monument is central in the photograph and obviously cannot be removed without radically changing the photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Serkan Günes.jpg

[edit]

Also uploaded to w:File:Serkan Günes portrait.jpg (in black & white) where it says that the uploader got the file by e-mail from the photographer. No evidence of permission. Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org forwarding the permission-email from the photographer. Where do I send it for the Swedish page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gragun (talk • contribs) 2013-10-06T19:00:21‎ (UTC)

Om tillståndet är på svenska, är nog info-sv@wikimedia.org bäst. Annars föreslår jag permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nu är den svartvita bilden godkänd för den engelska artikeln. Jag har mejlat tillståndet till adressen du angav. Finns det nåt sett att använda den svartvita bilden från engelska artikeln här i den svenka artikeln? TACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gragun (talk • contribs) 2013-10-08T09:35:38‎ (UTC)

På engelska Wikipedia står det att du har skickat in tillstånd men att vi väntar på att någon ska läsa vad det står i brevet. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: This has had six weeks -- it's time to move on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cinéma du Panthéon.jpg

[edit]

Building in Paris. The cinema was opened in 1907 at a place where there previously was a gymnasium. The uploader didn't specify who the architect is, and the building seems to be too recent to assume that the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The architect is unkown to my knowledge BUT since the building is far older than 1907 I strongly oppose that it is « too recent to assume that the architect has been dead for at least 70 years ». First the cinema was open in 1907 but the building itself was a gymnasium of the Sorbonne built well before, probably around 1850-1870, as most of the building in these streets in Paris. Second in the worst case scenario the building was built ca 1900 and thus the unkown architect is most certainly passed away before 1943. In conclusion, the argument of Stefan4 (who probably wrongly interpretated the page on WP:fr) is clearly not consistent enought to justify such a deletion.--LPLT (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the building is from around 1850-1870, then the architect has presumably been dead for 70 years. The signs are obviously from 1907 or later, and the one which shows a film projector is presumably copyrightable. I assume that no modern building has an anonymous architect. I don't know where to go in France, but I would assume that you can find the architect of any Swedish building by contacting a stadsbyggnadskontor. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the same building : the one of the cinema, built TMO around 1850-1870 or in the latest around 1900, since it was for years a gymnasium. The architect is 1/ unknown 2/ most probably dead before 1943 since built ca 1900 max and 3/ the building is not architecturally remarkable nor signed on the facade (to the opposite of the contiguous buildings) demonstrated the non copyrightable aspect of the work--LPLT (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) The photo shows what is basically a plain wall with a rectangular opening. To say that looking at this wall constitutes the contemplation of an original creative architectural work would be a stretch. 2) If the building is indeed from the mid-19th century, whoever built it was almost certainly dead by 1942. 3) It's a photo first published in the United States and Commons should not delete good and free photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I'd be very surprised if this buildling is 19th century -- it looks too modern. Our general rule for pma 70 countries is that a work must be older than 1885 to assume that the creator has died by 1943. I also think that the wire outline of a movie camera has a copyright, and that is probably much more recent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:온양한올중학교마크.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Hym411 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Complicated logo Stefan4 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their official homepage per this, at the bottom,All right reserved and the logo,I considered it copyvio and tagged. (Sorry for not including link) for now,  Delete. 레비Revi✉SUL Info 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that the uploader didn't make the logo. However, the question is whether the logo meets the threshold of originality. This would be copyrightable in Austria but not in Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no court decision about logo, but TOO of Korean (another dicision about text) is minimum level of not copying other's copyright. The file is enough complex and if it did not copied other copyrighted work, it can be copyrighted. However, this file seems to be uploaded on behalf of school(logo's copyright owner) and it should has permission problem if the file is kept.. 레비Revi✉SUL Info 08:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I think we need permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wet-capyvara-in-Brazil.jpg

[edit]

For seven years, we've had a file that says "unlimited use within Wikipedia.org; for all other uses..." with a CC-BY-SA attached. To complicate things, a few years ago an anonymous IP changed that line and added a name to the author field. If we find this acceptable, at least the licensing needs to be consistently free. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion -- that of the original photographer and uploader (original NEF available as proof) -- seven years is enough for a precedent. While here, I removed the bogus link to someone's Flickr-collection, but struggle to understand, why some Enzo Sano is named as the "author"...

--PanBK (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept you as the original author, but seven years or not, the licensing is contradictory. Since all files on Commons must be Free, if you want to keep the file on Commons, you should remove the line implying limitations beyond that of the CC-BY-SA on people outside Wikipedia. That can't stand and be on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In theory we have a valid CC-license which is of course not limited to Wiki[pm]edia. Thus we could remove the "unlimited use within Wikipedia.org; без обмежень в українсько-мовних публікаціях до 2016 року; for all other uses -- " from the description. However, I asked the author to comment on this DR... --McZusatz (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Rules of Legal Construction 101 -- if you say CC-BY, "but", then the "but" controls the CC-BY, not the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files from User:Contesjulien

[edit]

All these files were uploaded by User:Contesjulien. This user wanted to illustrate the article "Place Masséna" on French Wikipedia and it seems that he did not respect the copyright rules. Strong suspicion of a copyright violation for all these images. We don't know their origin (probably books or professional websites, see for example the name on File:Marché de Noël sur la place Masséna.jpg). Two files from User:Contesjulien have already been deleted (1 and 2) on the same topic. --Assalit (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les cartes postales anciennes
* File:La place Masséna avec le tramway en 1918.jpg
* File:La place Masséna et son réseau de transport en 1925.jpg
sont régulières, avec la bonne licence {{Anonymous-EU}} - --Claude villetaneuse (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(English automatic translation : Old postcards are regular, with the good license {{Anonymous-EU}})

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Compañía de Jesús PANAMA.jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Compañía de Jesús PANAMA.jpg

[edit]

me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not a reason to delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sign language M.svg

[edit]

vvb bfb bfv grv 190.212.192.222 01:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nonsense Podzemnik (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/09/30&oldid=110775087"