Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_КРТ-1.JPG){kind=link}
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
長安_(당)장안_(Đường)Trường_An_(とう)ちょうあん.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_08_by_shakko.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_6.jpg){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
![214 File:"Над волгой".jpg](#File:"Над_волгой".jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very bad quality, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
page créée par erreur (par moi-même), vide Fr.Latreille (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look free to use, no EXIF data Mattythewhite (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, it's signed. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
False PD rationale (and probably a candidate for speedy deletion as previously deleted content recreated outside of process). The logo does not consist of simple geometric shapes and text, but also features complex stylized highlights and shading. GSMA, the organisation behind the logo, is based in the UK, which has a very low threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look free to use, no EXIF data. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/scot_div_1/4354143.stm (with watermark) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
PDF document is damaged McZusatz (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not anymore Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: McZusatz (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Eigentümer ist mit der Veröffentlichung der Mittelmühle (Bilder) nicht einverstanden, bei nicht Löschung werden rechtliche Schritte dagegen geprüft! Anakin.Br (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Das Bild entstand von einer öffentlich zugänglichen Straße aus (Mittelmühlweg, siehe hier). Damit ist an der Entstehung und Veröffentlichung des Bildes unter Berücksichtigung der Panoramafreiheit grundsätzlich nichts zu bemängeln.
- 2. Sind Sie der Eigentümer oder ein Dritter? Teilen Sie bitte mit, welche und wessen Rechte Sie hier verletzt sehen. Welche rechtlichen Schritte sollen geprüft werden und gegen wen oder was?
- Gruß --Janericloebe (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously no valid reason for deletion, file is ok per German FOP. Rosenzweig τ 15:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Eigentümer ist mit der Veröffentlichung der Mittelmühle (Bilder) nicht einverstanden, bei nicht Löschung werden rechtliche Schritte dagegen geprüft! Anakin.Br (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Das Bild entstand von einer öffentlich zugänglichen Straße aus (Mittelmühlweg, siehe hier). Damit ist an der Entstehung und Veröffentlichung des Bildes unter Berücksichtigung der Panoramafreiheit grundsätzlich nichts zu bemängeln.
- 2. Sind Sie der Eigentümer oder ein Dritter? Teilen Sie bitte mit, welche und wessen Rechte Sie hier verletzt sehen. Welche rechtlichen Schritte sollen geprüft werden und gegen wen oder was?
- Gruß --Janericloebe (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously no valid reason for deletion, file is ok per German FOP. Rosenzweig τ 15:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope. Vandalism Lucien (es·m·com) 08:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
file was used for discussion about copyvio. Discussion closed, file not needed anymore Kathisma (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. No proper EXIF, uploader ‘s other uploads have all been copyvios. January (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Something probably went wrong in uploading, I'll look into it later. Effeietsanders (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Effeietsanders deleted page File:LG Hofvijver 2013 - 008.JPG (own upload, mistake in uploading.) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Misspelled file name. Request is by the uploader. — Ineuw 14:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Avinashraj22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Avinash6.jpg
- File:Avinash7.jpg
- File:Avinash8.jpg
- File:Avinash5.jpg
- File:Avinash4.jpg
- File:Avinash3.jpg
- File:Avinash Raj.jpg
- File:Avinash2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ericksmith123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability. Small resolution images of common subjects.
- File:Wood-door-with-locks-381817 246x131.jpg
- File:Readmore.jpg
- File:Logo-upper-east-side-locksmith1.gif
- File:Proximity-card-reader-33033 297x204.jpg
- File:Fancybox.jpg
- File:Home-hvac-contractor1-19457 246x131.jpg
- File:Corbis-42-29955330-68312 246x131.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Didym -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fenixceleste (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution photos without original exif or taken with many different cameras. Some of them marked as copyvio.
- File:CAYCEDO.jpg
- File:CHIPICHAPE.jpg
- File:ERMITA CALI.jpg
- File:LA TERTULIA MUSEO.jpg
- File:CALI DESDE 3.jpg
- File:CALI JAVERIANA.jpg
- File:CALI99.jpg
- File:CENTRO DE CALI.jpg
- File:CALI ERMITA.jpg
- File:GATO DEL RIO.jpg
- File:CALI SUROESTE.jpg
- File:CALI 2.jpg
- File:OESTE2.jpg
- File:DE SUR A CENTRO.jpg
- File:SAN ANTONIO.jpg
- File:CALI DE NOCHE-CENTRO.jpg
- File:CALI - OESTE.jpg
- File:CALI NOCTURNA.jpg
- File:COLINA SAN ANTONIO CALI.jpg
- File:Santiago de Cali-Centro.jpg
- File:Estadio Pascual Guerrero,Cali.jpg
- File:Cali desde el Cristo Rey.jpg
- File:CRISTO REY DE CALI.jpg
- File:TEATRO MUNICIPAL.jpg
- File:Cali desde el mirador Sebastian De Belalcazar.jpg
- File:SUR DE CALI.3jpg.jpg
- File:CALI CENTRO.jpg
- File:CALI-LA MERCED.JPG
- File:LA MERCED-CALI,COLOMBIA.jpg
- File:CALI-C.A.M.jpg
- File:CALI NOCHE3.jpg
- File:CALI PLAZA DE CAYCEDO3.jpg
- File:CALI-CLUB NOEL.jpg
- File:CALI SUR 2.jpg
- File:CALI CENTRO8.jpg
- File:CALI4.jpg
- File:Cali san antonio.JPG
- File:CALI NOCHE9.jpg
- File:CALI AMANECER.jpg
- File:CALI BIBLIOTECA DEPARTAMENTAL.jpg
- File:CALI SUR.jpg
- File:CALI-TORRE DE CALI.jpg
- File:CALI,SAN FRANCISCO.jpg
- File:CALI CALLE QUINTA.jpg
- File:CALI NOCHE2.jpg
- File:CALI MONUMENTO A LA SOLIDARIDAD.jpg
- File:CALI DESDE EL PICO DE LORO.jpg
- File:Banco de Occidente Y Camara de Comercio.jpg
- File:EDIFICIO OTERO-plaza de caicedo.jpg
- File:CAM1.jpg
- File:CERRO 3 CRUCES.jpg
- File:La merced5.jpg
- File:Plaza de caicedo1.jpg
- File:TERMINAL MEDIA.jpg
- File:CALI LOMA DE LA CRUZ.jpg
- File:Oeste de cali.jpg
- File:CENTRO CALI.jpg
- File:SAn Francisco cali.jpg
- File:EDIF BOTERO Y MAS.jpg
- File:ATARDECER CALEÑO.jpg
Art-top (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 17:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fenixceleste (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images are quite blatant copyright violations; most come from skyscrapercity.com
- File:Cali vista del sur.jpg
- File:CALI, Valle.jpg
- File:CALI, valle del cauca.jpg
- File:Cali cam.jpg
- File:Cali.jpg
- File:Cali diamante de sotbol.jpg
- File:Cali --centro.jpg
- File:CALI.jpg
- File:CALI, COLOMBIA.jpg
High Contrast (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Fenixceleste (talk · contribs)
[edit]Given the uploader's history, I doubt these files are own work.
- File:Facultad de Salud de la Univalle.jpg
- File:Facultad de Salud Univalle Cali.jpg
- File:Unidad Panamericana Cali.png
Rillke(q?) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. / Com:PCP --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fenixceleste (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
- File:Pasc.jpg
- File:PASCUAL.jpg
- File:Act.1jpg.jpg
- File:La Sultana del Valle.jpg
- File:Velódromo de Cali.jpg
- File:Cali.jpg
- File:Cali Valle.jpg
- File:Centro de Cali visto de Noche.jpg
- File:Centro de Cali..jpg
- File:Sur de Cali..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- File:Pasc.jpg is grabbed from http://www.skyscraperlife.com/city-versus-city/79591-quito-ecu-vs-cali-col-vs-asunci%F3n-par/index2.html#post4260584
- File:PASCUAL.jpg is grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/muvphotos/14373464288/ with the watermark deliberately cropped out to cover up the copyright infringement
- File:Act.1jpg.jpg is grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/akdonini/15040841811/
- File:Centro de Cali visto de Noche.jpg is grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151808051510671, again with the watermark deliberately cropped out to try to obscure the fraudulent nature of the uploader's authorship claims
- ...so
Delete. How many times are we going to have to do this before Fenixceleste has earned a permanent ban? He or she is clearly not at all interested in participating in a free content project. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Fenixceleste is now indefinitely blocked and I mass delete all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kowalski1969 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of book covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:6564568,property=imageData,v=1,CmPart=com.arte-tv.www.jpg
- File:Cinema-d-ailleurs-emprunte-La-Porte-du-Paradis reference.jpg
- File:Politique des zombies.jpg
- File:Livre JFK.jpg
- File:Mythes et masques les fantômes de John Carpenter.jpg
- File:Cinema contemporain, mode d'emploi.jpg
- File:Massacre à la tronçonneuse.jpg
- File:Argento.jpg
- File:Ciné US des années 1970.gif
- File:Sergio Leone livre.jpg
- File:71urWzK1CmL. SL1500.jpg
- File:41MlZj1KPXL. SL500 AA300.jpg
- File:Cine 70.jpg
- File:Jean-Baptiste Thoret.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no premission -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martina Belieber (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Files uploaded by Martina Belieber (talk · contribs) are copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: 1) Copyright violation 2) out of COM:SCOPE, personal unused photo -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: collection of promo photos -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ZeldaChick (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - tiny thumbs - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 06:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader removed a "no permission" tag and changedd source and author to "own work" - compare here. Looks to me doubtfully valid. JuTa 03:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader removed a "no permission" tag and changedd source and author to "own work" - compare here. Looks to me doubtfully valid. JuTa 04:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a different version of this file, this one is now redundant. Aleksander Veksler (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/655094/0/guemes/dimision/consejero/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2010/03/18/1056900.jpg = last modified: 18.03.2010, see also file path, credited with "ARCHIVO") as it was previously published via http://www.upm.es/sfs/Rectorado/Gabinete%20del%20Rector/Revista%20UPM/Historico/UPMdos.pdf (page 17, .pdf created in 2005, from a magazine of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 02.04.2005). In all other articles from 20minutos.es (e.g. http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/413158/0/guemes/libertad/medicos/ from 2008) the file is always credited with "ARCHIVO". Additionally, per COM:PRP, considering mass deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" + Commons talk:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" = (summary) "It was proven numerous times that "ARCHIVO" pictures from 20minutos.es are NOT created by 20minutos.es. See previous DRs." Gunnex (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has a history. Photo appears on newspaper website dated before claimed date. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/170936/bugger-polls-labour SimonLyall (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate pf File:LARKIN-2.jpg Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Image at this URl credited to Getty. Uploader also has a history http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Annette+King/Finance+Minister+Bill+English+Delivers+2011/X4RM2V2QP5D SimonLyall (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry, not an apparent restaurant, not a notable person, too low quality image for a "scene" appears to be a personal photo Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/459100/0/adria/collado/entrevista/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/03/25/944858.jpg = last modified: 25.03.2009, see also file path, credited with "ARCHIVO") and posterior published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/851541/0/collado/gay/gavilan/ (24.10.2010, which redirects to the file above and is here also credited with "ARCHIVO"). Per COM:PRP, considering mass deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" + Commons talk:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" = (summary) "It was proven numerous times that "ARCHIVO" pictures from 20minutos.es are NOT created by 20minutos.es. See previous DRs." Gunnex (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/386559/0/valladolid/director/seminci/ = clicking on the image --> http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/06/824209.jpg = last modified: 06.06.2008, see also file path, no credits given, normally: "Foto: 20minutos.es") as exif-info reveals "Copyrights: ALVARO CABRERA, JAVIER ANGULO.- DIRECTOR DE LAS MESAS REDONDAS DEL FESTIVAL DE CINE DE MALAGA.- TVMALAGA.- MALAGA", apparently a photo from personnel of TV Malaga.
The photo http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/06/824209_tn.jpg (which is on the 1st view displayed at this page) reveals exif-info: "Copyrights: Ramón Castro-EFE (...)". "EFE" indicates to en:EFE, a Spanish international news agency. Gunnex (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No SVG file. Zaibatsu (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Not so simple to be {{PD-textlogo}}, although I'd like to receive other opinions. - Fma12 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
标题与机车车号不符合，想删除该图片 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 桂段 (talk • contribs) 2013-10-03T08:03:02 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1384830/0/titanic-espanol/vapor-valbanera/olvido/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img2/recortes/2012/04/20/57310-944-532.jpg = last modified: 20.04.2012, see also file path) as it is credited to "EFE" which indicates to en:EFE, a Spanish international news agency, considering http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/ = "Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por 20 minutos procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a agencias de información (Reuters, EFE, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP...), a fotógrafos (Jorge París...) (...)" Btw, 20 minutos was founded only in 1999, EFE in 1939.
Eventually PD by other reasons, but for historical photos relevant info must be provided. Gunnex (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit blurred and reduntant. Similar image (better quality) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This may be deleted, because almost identical image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 08:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (a bit better straightened & better light) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit blurred. Superseded by this image (a bit clearer). Kulmalukko (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
...Photographs and other images appearing on the University webserver (http://www.swansea.ac.uk) have varying copyright. They are explicitly for use only on web pages published on the University webserver. For details on individual images please contact the Web Office. Images must not be reproduced without permission being granted in advance Source: http://www.swansea.ac.uk/includes/footer/disclaimer-and-copyright/ 91.66.153.214 09:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Fantasy licence! In fact: Opentopia © 2004-2011 All Rights Reserved. Some Content copyrighted and licensed by its respective owners. 91.66.153.214 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispenser (talk • contribs) 2013-10-03T04:11:23 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by this image (more light in the object). Kulmalukko (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (maybe a bit clearer) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Very similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Very similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. A bit clearer similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Superseded by this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit blurred, superseded by this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. Similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
copyvio - background image from Google Maps Absinthologue (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (a bit better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This may be deleted. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar image (clearer, with better light) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Because, this image, that i uploaded, was captured from internet video. And i think This image is against the copyright rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbit28 (talk • contribs) 2013-10-02T22:03:33 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical view is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar image is here (maybe better straightened). Kulmalukko (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar, better straightened image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the lamp in the front is work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957); the monument on the right side is work by I. Zajec (d. 1952). Eleassar (t/p) 10:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Similar, better straightened image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost identical to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Very similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Similar, better straightened image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by User_talk:Reanimator86, a blocked sock of Anaxibia. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anaxibia. jonkerz ♠talk 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by User_talk:Reanimator86, a blocked sock of Anaxibia. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anaxibia. jonkerz ♠talk 11:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
probably copyvio, from www.thomasjoly.fr exactly http://www.thomasjoly.fr/download-1044700-TJ_jpg.html, blog created in 2004 . We need OTRS from the photographer --MGuf (d) 12:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Description is Bullshit. Photo is joke. Dim Grits (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable organization, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable organization, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable radio station, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplikat of WAK_Leimbach Werrabr_05.jpg Metilsteiner (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable organization, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplikat of WAK Leimbach Werrabr 01.jpg Metilsteiner (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplikat of file: WAK Leimbach Werrabr 07.jpg Metilsteiner (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplikat of file: WAK Leimbach Werrabr 02.jpg Metilsteiner (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is from Palaeontologica Polonica. Mistaken for Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, it seems. Though they are associated, there is no clear statement that the former is free: http://www.palaeontologia.pan.pl/in_pp.htm Perhaps it is, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
_%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A2-1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A2-1.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Similar (almost identical) image with bigger resolution is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
_%D0%9A%D0%A0%D0%A2-1.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A bit blurred and reduntant. Similar (clearer) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_5.JPG){kind=link}
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_2.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_morning_-_Nishapur_2.JPG){kind=link}
Reduntant. The similar image (better focused to monument) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture with better light (and maybe better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I can not really find the source, but logo and the lack of EXIF suggest it is not own work. Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar with this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Dobrý den, souhlasím se smazáním. Hana Matulová
I agree with deleting. Kind regards, Hana Matulová
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost duplicate with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very simialar with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Overexposed. Similar (less overexposed) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical with this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, very similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost identical image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This image was was placed online by Echorouk Presse without evidence of a free license nearly a year before it was uploaded to Commons. The uploader needs to send a confirmation to COM:OTRS. But even if they did, the lack of EXIF and the fact that it was uploaded elsewhere long before the claimed date of the photo suggests that the uploader is not the photographer, as claimed. —RP88 20:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
This image was was posted online in several locations ([1], [2], etc.) without evidence of a free license years before it was uploaded to Commons. The uploader needs to send a confirmation to COM:OTRS. But even if they did, the lack of EXIF and the fact that it was uploaded elsewhere long before the claimed date of the photo suggests that the uploader is not the photographer, as claimed. —RP88 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation : the signature on the right is that of the still living heraldic artist Piet Bultsma (signature sample here). According to the dutch law, only the content of the arms is free. Each representation is protected by the artist copyright. For this representation, the still living artist Piet Bultsma holds therefore the copyright Kathisma (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
file transfered from it.wiki, where it was uploaded with a fair use license, as coming from http://www.araldicacivica.it/ Kathisma (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No specific source information (summary just says it's from Taikos.com). No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder; no evidence that permission has been obtained from copyright holder. Taikos.com currently has "All Rights Reserved" printed clearly at the bottom of their website. I JethroBT (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Somebody doubts that the given {{PD-UN}} is valid here - see [3]. Is this correct? JuTa 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: Work of the UN, no reason to delete. Yann (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A newer UN file, not suitable for {{PD-UN}}. I dont think this simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}}. JuTa 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. INeverCry 21:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: as {{PD-UN-doc}}. Yann (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Corrupt JPEG data: 17 extraneous bytes before marker 0xd3 McZusatz (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Honestly, this shows or tells us nothing about the march (Chicago Gay Pride 2010) it apparently belongs to. There's a balloon there, and... that's it. Ubcule (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is a derivative work of an illustration (created by ErrantWhimsy, as described here). There is no evidence that the original, of which File:Návod_k_velikosti_podprsenky.jpg is a derivative work, is available under a free license. —RP88 21:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
%E9%95%B7%E5%AE%89_(%EB%8B%B9)%EC%9E%A5%EC%95%88_(%C4%90%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng)Tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_An_(%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86)%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%86%E3%81%82%E3%82%93.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E9%95%B7%E5%AE%89_(%EB%8B%B9)%EC%9E%A5%EC%95%88_(%C4%90%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng)Tr%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_An_(%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86)%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%86%E3%81%82%E3%82%93.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This does not look like own work as stated. It might be {{PD-old}} or similar but we would need a reliable source. JuTa 22:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
長安_(당)장안_(Đường)Trường_An_(とう)ちょうあん.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
長安_(당)장안_(Đường)Trường_An_(とう)ちょうあん.jpg){kind=link}
Does not realy look like own work as stated, but more likely like a TV-screenshot or similar. JuTa 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader removed problem tag - see here. We need Permsion from the author though COM:OTRS. JuTa 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Azad Muafaq Najib, Born on January 21-1980 , Graduate of the Faculty of Law, Works as a director of division at slualimaniyah international airport- 2013-10-02 02-43.jpg
[edit]
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Bursa ilinde 1990 yilindan beri insaat sektorunde hizmet veren firmadir 2013-07-01 17-44.jpg
[edit]
Logo of a non-notable organization, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Vou refazê-lo Davis1910 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously not own work as claimed, most likely Crown Copyright. January (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Çorum ilk radyosu-99-0 mhz-Karasal yayin-Sahibi Hasan karaoğlu-Yayin tarzi hit müzik 2013-05-15 00-56.jpg
[edit]
Logo of a non-notable radio station, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Invalid copyright tag. No evidence that the image is available under a free licence. Stefan4 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. It is not invalid. It is insufficient. Ruslik (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Stefan4 Two Templates; {{no license|month=October|day=1|year=2013}} and {{delete|reason=Invalid copyright tag. No evidence that the image is available under a free licence.|subpage=File:Drukar mogila.JPG|year=2013|month=October|day=3}} are contradicting each oy-ther, because same file could not be deleted twice. Please delete first template.
- From my point of view there was consensus decision that this file is corresponding with {{PD-trivial}} and {{PD-text}} templates. So let me repeat the discussion here:
I need your help. This is a slide which was made by Victor Drukar, a grand-son of Aleksander Drukar, a member of State Duma of the Russian Empire of the second convocation by my request. Victor visited the grave yard because I ask him to make this photo. But he have no time and skills to upload it by himself. What we could do? From my point of view it's clear that this is free copy but how we could approve it? Hunu (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The best option would be for the photographer (Victor Drukar) to contact COM:OTRS by email, and confirm the license. They (Victor Drukar) must also choose a free license for the picture (for most circumstances a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license will be fine, that is the one I usually use). There is an email template here that would be suitable for them to use. I hope this helps. Liamdavies (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, due to the absence of the freedom of panorama in Russia, the photo can not be uploaded to Commons. Try the Russian Wikipedia under fair-use provisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can see nothing copyrightable on this image. This is just an example of {{PD-text}}. It can uploaded on Commons. Ruslik (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- May be indeed one can claim it is PD-trivial or PD-text.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for advices. Hunu (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- See also User talk:Stefan4#File:Drukar mogila.JPG. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- An explicit permission from Victor Drukar is still needed. Ruslik (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Ruslik, You wrote "I can see nothing copyrightable on this image." Do you change your point of view? Why? Sincerely, Hunu (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Nothing copyrightable on this image" means that none of the objects on the photo are copyrightable. However, the photo itself is copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you believe that there is no situation where you could use templates PD-trivial or PD-text, because we are not able yo upload the stone itself but only photo or drawing. So for your point of view we never have rights to use PD-trivial or PD-text templates. Do I understand you correctly? I'm not agree that somebody delete the templates PD-trivial or PD-text from the image's page. We did not finished the discussion. Hunu (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hunu, you cannot use those templates for this file. That discussion was about the content of the photo (the headstone), not the photo; it was about if the headstone is copyright, not the photo, the photo is copyright and not public domain. The photo needs to be licensed by the person who took it, they need to release it under a free license. The best way to do this is through COM:OTRS. If it is not licensed under a free license we must delete it. Liamdavies (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, I ask you again. How you could separate content of the photo from "photo itself"? I am not able to upload the itself (paper and so on) all of us are uploading only content. With best regards, Hunu (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- If someone paints a piece of art it is copyright, and I can not take a photo of it and sell it, as I would be breaking the copyright of the artist who painted it. In Russia all objects of creative work follow the same rule, so it is breaking copyright to photograph something that someone made and then upload it. This applies to things such as buildings, statues, art and so on, even if they are in public. The discussion was about if the headstone itself is protected by copyright or not, if the headstone has copyright any photo of it is a copyright violation and must be deleted. In Russian law taking a photo of something that is copyright and uploading it/sell it is exactly the same as illegally copying DVDs or CDs and then selling them. And as the physical CD is different from its content, the photo is different from what it has captured. It was this that the PD discussion was about, not the actual photo but what it had captured. The photo itself is work of who took it, we need the permission of the person who took to photo in order to host it. You must go through the COM:OTRS procedure if you do not want the photo to be deleted. Liamdavies (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, I ask you again. How you could separate content of the photo from "photo itself"? I am not able to upload the itself (paper and so on) all of us are uploading only content. With best regards, Hunu (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hunu, you cannot use those templates for this file. That discussion was about the content of the photo (the headstone), not the photo; it was about if the headstone is copyright, not the photo, the photo is copyright and not public domain. The photo needs to be licensed by the person who took it, they need to release it under a free license. The best way to do this is through COM:OTRS. If it is not licensed under a free license we must delete it. Liamdavies (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you believe that there is no situation where you could use templates PD-trivial or PD-text, because we are not able yo upload the stone itself but only photo or drawing. So for your point of view we never have rights to use PD-trivial or PD-text templates. Do I understand you correctly? I'm not agree that somebody delete the templates PD-trivial or PD-text from the image's page. We did not finished the discussion. Hunu (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Nothing copyrightable on this image" means that none of the objects on the photo are copyrightable. However, the photo itself is copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Ruslik, You wrote "I can see nothing copyrightable on this image." Do you change your point of view? Why? Sincerely, Hunu (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- An explicit permission from Victor Drukar is still needed. Ruslik (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- See also User talk:Stefan4#File:Drukar mogila.JPG. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for advices. Hunu (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- May be indeed one can claim it is PD-trivial or PD-text.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can see nothing copyrightable on this image. This is just an example of {{PD-text}}. It can uploaded on Commons. Ruslik (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, due to the absence of the freedom of panorama in Russia, the photo can not be uploaded to Commons. Try the Russian Wikipedia under fair-use provisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted Denniss (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Overexposed. Similar image (not so overexposed) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 05:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost duplicate with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 05:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As requested by the person - news anchor from Channel 2, Israel -Itzike (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree I'm against the deletion. Segal is a public figure, the picture is not offensive and was taken in a public place (a political party convention he covered) after the photographer had asked Segal for a permission to take the picture. Segal approached some people at the Hebrew Wikipedia regarding this issue and was asked over and over again to release another picture that may replace the current one, as long as he does it with an OTRS approval. This request has not been fulfilled. While we may respect a public figure's request when a picture might be considered a bit offensive or was taken by surprise, this is not the case and we do need to allow Wikipedians the right to take picture that eventually will be in use in Wikimedia projects. Deleting this picture might be a step in the opposite direction. Ldorfman (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree, Amit Segal sent another picture with OTRS permmissin see File:Amit Segal.jpg. I see no problem to delete this picture, I can understand why he wants to delete it. Hanay (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While I generally do not like deleting images at the subject's request, this one is poor quality -- redeye, blur -- so I think we can do without it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Blaisois inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Blaisois inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Vivarais inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has a history. No evidence provided that copyright was released and Young Labour website has standard copyright notice. SimonLyall (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- As a derivative of the main party logo (which is here), this would also be PD. Keep Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Vivarais inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ieung stroke order.png is in opposition to the correct drawing ㅇ (ieung) stroke order.png. It seems of no use to keep it, it's only misleading. sarang♥사랑 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
_stroke_order.png){kind=link}
- Delete, unless this calligraphic mistake is somewhat notable and thusly might be relevant to have it documented. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is just a simple confusion, in opposition to all the other drawings the arrow is at the left letter instead of right of it; not noteable. sarang♥사랑 05:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: .. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of an advert, not de minimis but the subject of the image. -- Trevj (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on exactly what the problem is here. GTHO (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry if it's not clear. The photo is a derivative work of the artwork used in the advert, which is copyrighted. Because the advert itself is basically the main subject of the photo, freedom of panorama (if applicable) doesn't necessarily apply because the inclusion within the photo is not de minimis. This may all seem rather convoluted but images hosted here on Commons are to be freely available for others to use. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the photo in question. I hope that helps. -- Trevj (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader didn't create image on the paper on the bus. Permission is needed from the copyright holder to that image. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Mieum stroke order.png shows an incorrect stroke order. The file is not used and would be only misleading, the correct order is shown in ㅁ (mieum) stroke order.png: _stroke_order.png){kind=small}
.
It can either be hidden in some special category, but IMHO it's better not to keep it. sarang♥사랑 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, unless this calligraphic mistake is somewhat notable and thusly might be relevant to have it documented. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is just a simple confusion, the drawer mixed up something to the contrary; not noteable. sarang♥사랑 05:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Auxerrois inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Beaujolais inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Beaujolais inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The given license is dubious. This file was taken from the web site which doesn't show any licenses for its images. Molders13 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Link? -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Used PD-USGov-Military-Army licence Scott Speicher (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Source is shown in file description (http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/1747/index17.html). Molders13 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's my own work Scott Speicher (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're the author, but still put the link to some web site as a source... And in July you weren't the author, as it seems (Author - Unknown)... Molders13 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- License has long been fixed Scott Speicher (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was "fixed" just the day before yesterday, right after the nomination. By the way, the author is still "Unknown". Molders13 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- License has long been fixed Scott Speicher (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're the author, but still put the link to some web site as a source... And in July you weren't the author, as it seems (Author - Unknown)... Molders13 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's my own work Scott Speicher (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Source is shown in file description (http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/quarters/1747/index17.html). Molders13 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't understand what's going on here -- the wreckage is of the plane of LCDR Scott Speicher, who is dead. Our uploader is User:Scott Speicher, and claims that the image is "own work". Anyway, the image appears on several copyrighted web sites, so it requires OTRS -- it can't be PD-Gov because it is very likely a snapshot, not a photograph taken by a soldier whose job is photography. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You're the owner? I'm sorry but isn't true. 190.248.192.173 16:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing copyrightable under US threshold. Keep Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The 3D effect in the ball inside makes this logo copyrightable, otherwise this would be an obvious case of {{PD-textlogo}}
- Not for the United States it doesn't. It's simply geometry and text. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm not sure what is represented in the shadows in the ball, but it isn't simple geometry. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous chemical structure depiction. It is impossible to tell connectivity the way this is drawn. (FWIW, there are many other problematic images among User:Jatlas' hundreds of recent chemical structure uploads.) ChemNerd (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Info I have uploaded Picrinine.svg. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)- Delete per nom as a hopeless mess. Appears to be autogenerated based on connectivity, without any actual thought to what it means or how to represent it clearly. Delete it regardless, but having a nice replacement is even better. I added an annotation to the SVG suggesting a tweak to make it even slightly clearer. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar identical picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Please, go ahead and delete this image. Halavar (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Does not look like own work as stated. PS: don't forget the redirect File:Escudo Meninada FC.jpg. JuTa 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- and why have you nominated this one? there are no people crossing the street here. i would nominate the other one --アンタナナ 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Exposure is better on the other -- people crossing the street help give scale. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a way to change the license and keep the image somewhere, so that copyright laws are respected? Jordiferrer (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have an idea, except of asking the respective sculptor (or his heirs) for permission. If you want to try that, then leave a note here. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Can be restored if permission is forthcoming. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is likely a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not so sure, that Andorra and/or the author of the sculpture would have anything to say about the image on WP articles: after all, it's good advertising for booth! Rather I tink now, that it would be better to write at bottom of the photo the name of the sculptor, but unfortunately I don't know it.--K.Weise (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, it doesn't work like that. Copyright in a material work of art includes any depictions of that work. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, as far as I'm concerned, you can delete the file immediately.--K.Weise (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, it doesn't work like that. Copyright in a material work of art includes any depictions of that work. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, Didn't realized while uploading. Delete if needed.--Kippelboy (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- We received a permission from the sculptor for all pictures of this sculpture, see ticket 2013103110010753 - Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is likely a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
_08_by_shakko.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08_by_shakko.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Reduntant, very similar with this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
_06_by_shakko.jpg){kind=link}
_08_by_shakko.jpg){kind=link}
- cropped to show detail, now not the similar. Keep. ----Shakko (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Generally we don't need crops . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
_08_by_shakko.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. I knew it was OK in Spain and did not check for Andorra. --vip (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. I knew it was OK in Spain and did not check for Andorra. --vip (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a sculpture by Josep Viladomat and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_6.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is likely a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. Is anything known about the sculptor and the date (year) of installation? -- Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_6.jpg){kind=link}
Same problem:
- File:Església de Sant Pere Màrtir (Escaldes-Engordany) - 9.jpg
- File:Església de Sant Pere Màrtir (Escaldes-Engordany) - 7.jpg
- File:Sant Pere Martir de les Escaldes3.jpg
_-_9.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_6.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is likely a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation : the signature on the right is that of the still living heraldic artist Piet Bultsma (signature sample here). According to the dutch law, only the content of the arms is free. Each representation is protected by the artist copyright. For this representation, the still living artist Piet Bultsma holds therefore the copyright Kathisma (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The version to be deleted is the version of 17:42, 19 January 2008. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This file may be deleted; I have this superseded jpg-file replaced in all uses by the svg-file. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio : this file has been taken from Arnaud Bunel website (http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/Benelux/Liege.htm#Province ), which bears the mention all rights reserved (tous droits reserves). Kathisma (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete quite clear + It seems that the main SVG versions have autotraced the perron from this version (File:Blason liege prov.svg, File:Blason liege prov crown.svg, File:Blason province liège couronne.svg), if one looks at the artefacts. Category:Symbols of Liège contains another Bunel-copy, and a few derivatives. Even more remarkable is that they're all quite clearly the same trace, yet few of these files attribute eachother. Another Bunel copy: File:Bishopric liege flag.gif, and a hand traced derivative of the Perron: File:Armoiries Principauté de Liège.svg
- The official version of the coat of arms is in the public domain, however. On a related note, the The official website of the province has taken this incorrect image (without attribution). Unbelievable. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
JPG file in SVG. Not in use McZusatz (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Also to note is that the SVG itself is non-conforming (lacks
xmlns.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 11:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A low res, low quality quasi dupe from this one. Such 3D shaped borders are discouraged at Commons. Ras67 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Akalla Metro station
[edit]According to SOU 1965:25 page 264:
Såsom förutsättning för rätten att avbilda konstverket har uppställts, att detta är stadigvarande anbragt på eller vid allmän plats. Med allmän plats menas plats under bar himmel, som utan vidare är tillgänglig för allmänheten, exempelvis torg, gator och parker. Som allmän plats kan således icke anses det inre av byggnader, även om dessa äro tillgängliga för allmänheten. Konstverk i kyrkor, rådhus, museer o. dyl. få därför icke avbildas med stöd av förevarande bestämmelse.
This is not "under bar himmel" as it is an underground station. The artist, sv:Birgit Ståhl-Nyberg, died in 1982 and has not yet been dead for 70 years.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it is the accepted interpretation of Swedish law that it treats outdoor and indoor metro stations differently, then I have no objections to my photograph being deleted from Commons. Caesar (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This category targets specifically views of the Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France. But the architects have not been dead for at least 70 years: Léon Azéma, †1978; Louis-Hippolyte Boileau † 1948, Jacques Carlu, † 1976, and there is no freedom of panorama in France. Maybe in some of these views, the Palais de Chaillot can be said de minimis, but note that the skyscrapers of the business district of La Défense in the background are also under copyright. --Myrabella (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Chaillotpalatset.jpg
- File:Ponte d'jena a parigi1.jpg
- File:16th arrondissement paris.jpg
- File:Aussicht Eiffelturm.jpg
- File:La Défense3.jpg
- File:Paris 124..jpg
- File:PARIS desde la torre eiffel.jpg
- File:Paris pano - 1-1.jpg
- File:Paris Trocadero 111.jpg
- File:Place du Trocadéro.jpg
- File:Quartier 'la Défense', en Paris, vue de la tour Eiffel.jpg
- File:RParis (11).JPG
- File:Trocadero et La Defense.jpg
- File:Trocadero from the Eiffeltower.JPG
- File:Trocadero p31.JPG
- File:View from the Eiffel Tower's Second Level.jpg
- File:ViewfromEiffel3.jpg
- File:ViewfromEiffel4.jpg
- File:Widok Paryża z Wieży Eiffla.jpg
- File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg
- File:ChaillotEiffelView.JPG
- File:Eiffel.trocadero.250pix.jpg
- File:Jardins du Trocadéro.jpg
- File:Palais de Chaillot- seen from the Eiffel Tower.jpg
- File:Towards Bois de Boulogne and La Defense from the Eiffel Tower.jpg
- File:Vue de la tour Eiffel (Trocadero).JPG
- File:LaDefense pl.jpg
- File:Palais de Chaillot et seine.jpg
- File:Palais de Chaillot from the Eiffel Tower, 23 July 2009.jpg
- File:Palais de Chaillot-DSC 2199w.jpg
- File:Plaza del Trocadero (8464219239).jpg
- File:Plaza del Trocadero vista desde la Torre Eiffel (4758149388).jpg
- File:Quartier de la Muette.jpg
- File:Trocadero and cemetery.jpg
- File:View from the Eiffel Tower (2941578718).jpg
- File:View from The eiffel tower in Paris France (9898802316).jpg
- File:View from The eiffel tower in Paris France (9898823395).jpg
- File:View from The eiffel tower in Paris France (9898873776).jpg
- File:View from The eiffel tower in Paris France (9899025525).jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Myrabella (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of these are utter crap. Nevertheless I think you are applying a too strict an interpretation of the no-FOP restriction. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why "too strict" ? Dura lex, sed lex. This french (and belgian, and others...) rule is stupid and ununderstandable. The most we show that it is stupid usque ad absurdum, the best it is. WMFrance is working very hard by lobbying with Parliament and Government against this rule, and such massive deletions requests are good examples, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know the French law and one could argue that all these buildings are just incidental to the gestalt of the image. If memory serves there is case law to support this view. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- In Italy it is much worse because no building, whatever the age, can be photographed even outside from the public way for commercial reasons without the permission of the owner. The only right to fotograph it is for educational and cultural purposes. That means that the picture can be kept on commons bot not reused. Maybe commons policies have to be changed?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Moroder: I beg to differ. If a picture can't be freely reused for any purpose, it can't be kept on Commons. See Commons:Licensing : "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." By the way, Jebulon has perfectly expressed the sense of this DR. --Myrabella (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understood what Wolfgang was articulating. If the law in Italy were to be applied as strictly as implied by this DR, it would mean many cultural heritage properties in Italy would have to be deleted. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think Wikimedia in general has a policy of ignoring perpetual copyright provisions in the law of the source country as long as the work is PD in the US. Take, for example, the King James Bible on Wikisource. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understood what Wolfgang was articulating. If the law in Italy were to be applied as strictly as implied by this DR, it would mean many cultural heritage properties in Italy would have to be deleted. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Moroder: I beg to differ. If a picture can't be freely reused for any purpose, it can't be kept on Commons. See Commons:Licensing : "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." By the way, Jebulon has perfectly expressed the sense of this DR. --Myrabella (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- In Italy it is much worse because no building, whatever the age, can be photographed even outside from the public way for commercial reasons without the permission of the owner. The only right to fotograph it is for educational and cultural purposes. That means that the picture can be kept on commons bot not reused. Maybe commons policies have to be changed?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know the French law and one could argue that all these buildings are just incidental to the gestalt of the image. If memory serves there is case law to support this view. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all except for File:Palais de Chaillot from the Eiffel Tower, 23 July 2009.jpg and File:Plaza del Trocadero (8464219239).jpg ( Delete both). Each of these is just a general view, with neither the Défense skyscrapers nor the Palais de Chaillot taking precedence. I think all the structures fall under COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all except for File:Palais de Chaillot from the Eiffel Tower, 23 July 2009.jpg and File:Plaza del Trocadero (8464219239).jpg ( Delete both). Concur with the King. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I have kept a very few of these where the Palais was not the center of the image or was clearly de minimis. IN almost all of them, the Palais is front and center, with the image cropped to show its symmetry. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I won't waste my time commenting on DRs in the future. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Konyveim.a (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only images which could be replaced with wiki markup. Used on user pages.
- File:321-Haystack.png
- File:320-Caverns.png
- File:319-Salad.png
- File:318-Utilize-ScrewDriver.png
- File:317-BigDipper.png
- File:315-Shovel.png
- File:315-Comb.png
- File:314-Sieve.png
- File:314-Mop.png
- File:313-Rake.png
- File:311-Broom2.png
- File:311-Broom.png
- File:306-Monkey.png
- File:305-Roots.png
- File:304-Shoot-Sprout.png
- File:298-ShakuhachiFlute.png
- File:301-Altar.png
- File:301-Altar-Left.png
- File:295-Rag.png
- File:296-Flag.png
- File:294-Banner.png
- File:293-Stredder.png
- File:292-Unknown.png
- File:291-Puzzle.png
- File:290-Plow.png
- File:289-AssemblyLine.png
- File:286-Unknown.png
- File:277-Bamboo.png
- File:279-Person-Left.png
- File:274-Rice.png
- File:270-Wheat.png
- File:267-Boulevard.png
- File:267-Column.png
- File:265-Muscle-Power.png
- File:263-Slave.png
- File:263-ToDrop.png
- File:261-Husband.png
- File:258-Sunglasses.png
- File:260-Mandala.png
- File:257-Bone.png
- File:254-Gully.png
- File:254-OutHouse.png
- File:246-Wall.png
- File:251-GoIn-PutIn-ComeIn.png
- File:247-Infant.png
- File:244-Elbow.png
- File:243-BirdHouse.png
- File:242-Flegling.png
- File:242-VultureClaws.png
- File:242-Claw.png
- File:239-Missile.png
- File:240-Spool.png
- File:238-Arm.png
- File:236-OutStretchedHands.png
- File:237-Crotch.png
- File:235-Fist.png
- File:234-GenieInABottle.png
- File:234-Genius-Genie.png
- File:233-TwoHands.png
- File:229-Fingers.png
- File:223-Idea.png
- File:228-Hand.png
- File:221-Vermilion.png
- File:221-Valentine.png
- File:221-StateOfMind.png
- File:221-Heart.png
- File:220-Cave.png
- File:218-PentIn.png
- File:216-Feathers-Wings.png
- File:214-TurkeyHouse.png
- File:215-Pegasus.png
- File:214-Horse.png
- File:211-Turkey.png
- File:211-Wool.png
- File:209-Sheep-Top.png
- File:209-Sheep.png
- File:208-PiggyBank.png
- File:208-Piglets.png
- File:207-Sow.png
- File:206-Eel.png
- File:205-Wrap.png
- File:203-DropsOfInsects.png
- File:204-Snake.png
- File:202-Insect.png
- File:201-Scorpion.png
- File:196-Porter.png
- File:195-Increase.png
- File:194-Devil.png
- File:195-East-TheEast.png
- File:192-Compass-Direction.png
- File:191-ToPerish.png
- File:190-Mirror.png
- File:189-Sound.png
- File:188-Muzzle.png
- File:189-Kazoo.png
- File:187-Next-Second.png
- File:185-Lack-Yawn.png
- File:185-DoubleBack.png
- File:183-Reclining-LyingDown.png
- File:181-Siesta.png
- File:180-Spoon-SomeoneSittingOnTheGround.png
- File:178-Antique.png
- File:176-Heavens.png
- File:176-Vase.png
- File:176-Angel.png
- File:175-Ice-Under.png
- File:175-Ice.png
- File:174-Rain-Weather.png
- File:173-RisingCloud.png
- File:172-Buckle.png
- File:171-Apron.png
- File:169-Towel.png
- File:167-Unknown.png
- File:167-TopHatAndScarf.png
- File:167-Scarf.png
- File:167-Cloak.png
- File:166-Zoo.png
- File:165-Stretch.png
- File:162-Mending.png
- File:159-Stop-FootPrint.png
- File:158-Float.png
- File:157-March.png
- File:156-Parade.png
- File:155-Thanksgiving.png
- File:154-Quiver.png
- File:154-Fiesta.png
- File:153-Arrow.png
- File:148-Saying-Speech-Words.png
- File:146-TaskMaster.png
- File:145-Brush-Top.png
- File:145-Brush.png
- File:144-SchoolHouse.png
- File:142-LiddedCrock.png
- File:143-Samurai.png
- File:143-AerosolCan.png
- File:142-Lap.png
- File:139-WhirlWind.png
- File:138-Chariot.png
- File:139-Tall-Top.png
- File:137-TopHat.png
- File:137-Crown.png
- File:137-Belt.png
- File:134-WalkingLegs.png
- File:134-Each.png
- File:133-Butcher.png
- File:132-Car-Cart-Wagon-Vehicle.png
- File:130-Road.png
- File:123-Gold-Metal.png
- File:122-CandleStick.png
- File:118-King-Scepter.png
- File:119-Jewel-Ball.png
- File:117-Meeting.png
- File:116-Umbrella.png
- File:114-Cow.png
- File:114-Cow-Top.png
- File:112-PackOfWildDogs.png
- File:111-SmallDog.png
- File:110-Turtle.png
- File:110-Portent.png
- File:105-GraveYard.png
- File:103-Flower.png
- File:093-Tree-Wood.png
- File:089-House.png
- File:087-Hood.png
- File:084-Computer-StandardAmount.png
- File:079-Flames-Cauldron-CookingFire-OvenFire.png
- File:079-Fire-FirePlace.png
- File:077-Ivy.png
- File:070-Spring.png
- File:075-Soil-Dirt-Land.png
- File:068-Water.png
- File:067-Stream-Left.png
- File:067-Stream-Top.png
- File:067-Water-Left.png
- File:067-Stream-Bottom.png
- File:063-Spark-Candle.png
- File:062-Stones-Rocks.png
- File:061-Evening.png
- File:060-Cliff.png
- File:060-LargeDog.png
- File:059-Small-Top.png
- File:058-Teenager.png
- File:058-Small1.png
- File:057-Breasts.png
- File:056-Woman.png
- File:055-Child.png
- File:053-Nail-Spike.png
- File:052-Wealth.png
- File:052-Seduce.png
- File:051-Sword.png
- File:051-Dagger.png
- File:048-Craft-IBeam-Artificial.png
- File:046-FishHook-Right.png
- File:047-Tool.png
- File:046-FishHook-Bottom.png
- File:040-Page-Head.png
- File:038-Shell.png
- File:038-ByOnesSide.png
- File:037-Wind.png
- File:037-Horns.png
- File:037-BoundUp-Top.png
- File:037-BoundUp.png
- File:036-HumanLegs.png
- File:036-AnimalLegs.png
- File:035-Mist.png
- File:033-DiviningRod.png
- File:033-Acupuncturist.png
- File:032-FatMan.png
- File:032-Glue.png
- File:029-WhiteBird.png
- File:028-WalkingStick.png
- File:029-Oneself-Nose-Nostrils.png
- File:028-Drop.png
- File:024-SunFlower.png
- File:021-Old.png
- File:020-RiceField-Brains.png
- File:020-Eye.png
- File:020-EyeSideways.png
- File:019-Sun-Day-MouthWithWaggingTongue.png
- File:018-Ten-Needle.png
- File:018-Mouth-Entrance-Cave.png
- File:019-Moon-Flesh-PartOfTheBody.png
- File:018-BaseballTeam.png
- File:017-Diced.png
- File:016-Floor-Ceiling.png
- File:447-TailFeathers.png
- File:469-WhoKnows.png
- File:465-GoldenCalf.png
- File:462-Deer.png
- File:460-Tiger.png
- File:459-TeamOfHorses.png
- File:457-Rabbit.png
- File:456-Condor.png
- File:456-Skunk.png
- File:454-TalkingCricket.png
- File:454-MountainGoat.png
- File:453-MigratingDucks.png
- File:449-Owl.png
- File:448-HairPin.png
- File:448-AnimalMane.png
- File:448-Hair.png
- File:447-LockOfHair.png
- File:445-Turn.png
- File:445-AnimalTracks.png
- File:436-ClothesHanger.png
- File:435-StapleGun.png
- File:434-Drag-Under.png
- File:434-Drag.png
- File:432-DogTag.png
- File:431-People.png
- File:431-CityWalls.png
- File:431-CallingCard.png
- File:430-FamilyName.png
- File:429-ScrapBook.png
- File:428-Funnel.png
- File:427-Angles.png
- File:424-Together.png
- File:423-UpsideDownInARow.png
- File:423-Row.png
- File:421-Shelf.png
- File:420-OakTub.png
- File:419-Purse.png
- File:418-BushelBasket.png
- File:417-WickerBasket.png
- File:416-Mosaic.png
- File:414-Apple.png
- File:413-Sparkler.png
- File:412-FencePosts.png
- File:411-Plaid.png
- File:409-Shape.png
- File:408-PupTent.png
- File:407-Teepee.png
- File:405-Box-Not-Enclosure.png
- File:405-Box.png
- File:404-Sickness.png
- File:402-Awl.png
- File:399-Potato.png
- File:398-ClothesLine.png
- File:397-Locket.png
- File:396-Key.png
- File:396-Guillotine.png
- File:395-JailCell.png
- File:393-Gates.png
- File:390-West-TheWest.png
- File:390-OldWest.png
- File:388-Beforehand.png
- File:387-Clock.png
- File:385-ScareCrow.png
- File:386-Silage.png
- File:385-Cabbage.png
- File:384-CornStalk.png
- File:384-Bonsai.png
- File:383-ChristmasTree.png
- File:382-Bushes-Left.png
- File:382-Bushes.png
- File:378-GrowUp.png
- File:381-Cell.png
- File:377-GrassSkirt.png
- File:376-Resin.png
- File:376-Celery.png
- File:375-Acorn.png
- File:374-RiceSeedling.png
- File:373-Cornucopia.png
- File:372-Ketchup.png
- File:371-EarthWorm.png
- File:371-Spicy.png
- File:370-Sheaf.png
- File:369-WaterLilly.png
- File:368-Waitress.png
- File:367-Eating-Food.png
- File:366-SaintsHalo.png
- File:365-Silver-Left.png
- File:365-Silver.png
- File:362-Table.png
- File:362-Drum.png
- File:360-LiquorBottle.png
- File:359-Staples.png
- File:358-Receipt.png
- File:358-Mailbox.png
- File:357-FingerPrint.png
- File:355-ChopSeal-Top.png
- File:355-ChopSeal.png
- File:353-Yarn.png
- File:354-Stamp.png
- File:352-Abacus.png
- File:351-Cocoon.png
- File:346-Thread.png
- File:344-PaperPunch.png
- File:339-Pinnacle.png
- File:342-Hole.png
- File:338-JawBone.png
- File:334-Maestro.png
- File:334-Scissors.png
- File:336-Leg-Left.png
- File:332-PuppetOnAString.png
- File:332-OldMan.png
- File:330-Slingshot.png
- File:329-Snare.png
- File:328-DollarSign-Bottom.png
- File:328-DollarSign.png
- File:327-Bow.png
- File:327-Spear.png
- File:324-BuildingBlocks.png
- File:323-Quarter.png
- File:322-StrawMan.png
- File:321-Saw.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Naked woman is peeing to the glass. Image illustrates nothing - because this is not even urophilia, which demands contact with urine. Pure vulgar nonsense. Andrzej19 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep At least this DR is openly about this being, per nominator, "pure vulgar nonsense". Well, i call this DR pure vulgar nonsense:
- 1- As there is an image of this same erotic show (that is in scope, and kept before) of this same women drinking urine from the same glass that appears in this same image, so here you have the contact with urine
- 2- Even if there wasnt any contact with urine, this is an image of urophilia, as urophiliais defined as "form of salirophilia (which is a form of paraphilia) in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination.", so this image is also in scope of urophilia. Also Commons is not censored and it if you dont like it, dont look at it. Tm (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would like not to deal with people who support such images - but I have to, sadly. This not about censoring - it is about the picture which ilustrates nothing. Naked woman with glass on her head? What value do you see in it? And You are right - this is commons which is to have good and encyclopedic ilustration - if You are seeing sth encyclopedic in it - I cannot argue, but this not a website with cheap amateur porn. Andrzej19 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per previous DRs about the same woman and the same topic here, here and here ! As for these previous DRs, there's no valid reason for deletion : this is an encyclopedic illustration of both erotic shows (and this file shows a quite specific view of the topic, unshown in other files on the same theme) and urolagnia (which is, according to the Wikipedia definition itself, a "sexual excitement [...] associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination", therefore not only excitement due to a contact with urine as Andrzej19 says it). Apart from that, it's funny to read that Andrzej19 claims it's "not about censoring" while he also concludes by saying "this not a website with cheap amateur porn". Yeah, well, you've said it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Photo of a woman at an erotic show, showing something erotic. Seems reasonable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Described with "Esta viñeta, creada por Eneko para 20minutos.es (...)", the file is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 per http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/: "Estas condiciones tienen las siguientes excepciones: (...) Los dibujos de los viñetistas no podrán ser reproducidos con fines comerciales. (...) Para nuestros viñetistas: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0". Gunnex (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete The description of the image was a little confusing but now I see that the license does not permit commercial use.Cameta (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
_01.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but this is a recent sculpture and thereby still copyrighted. As Andorra regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
Comment: As this problem affects many valuable photos in Category:Sculptures in Andorra, concerned users, such as Jordiferrer, are now preparing a coordinated effort to obtain permission from the original artists (sculptors). Therefore, this DR should be left open as long as it seems justifiable. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
Images of Haus Ruhreck
[edit]- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP0996 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP0999 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1004 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1008 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1007 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1013 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1014 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1017 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1020 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1023 smial wp.jpg
- File:Hagen Haus Ruhreck IMGP1026 smial wp.jpg
- Not FOP. -- Smial (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept According to Haus Ruhreck, the house was built in 1878. That is early enough to assume that the architect(s) died before 1943 and that, therefore, the building is PD and FOP is not required. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This painting is still in copyright (see the caption here). The painter is not the uploader, and there is no evidence of permission from the painter or his heirs.
- - there is evidence of permission from the painter or his heirs. The painter the father of my wife, and Died in 2000
Also:
- File:"Зимний туман".jpg
- File:"Поля весенние".jpg
- File:"Одуванчики" 1980-е.jpg
- File:"Первые проталины".jpg
- File:Лев Александрович Успенский.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
![09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/03#c-Jameslwoodward-2013-10-03T09:51:00.000Z-File:"Над_волгой".jpg){kind=link}
- The author of these pictures the father of my wife (kinboroda)
- In that case, if your wife is the painter's only heir, then she must provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If there are other heirs, then all of them must provide a license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Even if there is permission received via OTRS, Commons is not for hosting personal art, because it falls outside of its scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
![15:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/03#c-P199-2013-11-12T15:05:00.000Z-File:"Над_волгой".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per P199, uploader not copyright holder, out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
![12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/03#c-Mattbuck-2013-11-18T12:40:00.000Z-File:"Над_волгой".jpg){kind=link}
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia: performers' rights. Eleassar (t/p) 12:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, the Slovene Army Orchestra is a national instutution, making the work "public information" which may be reused commercially (under ZDIJZ). — Yerpo Eh? 13:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Evidence? Of course, the anthem is "public information", but this specific performance is not. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- What makes you think it isn't? The Slovene Army Orchestra is a state institution and works by state institutions may be reused commercially under the abovementioned law. — Yerpo Eh? 13:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Central Catalogue of Information of Public Character does not include it.[4] --Eleassar (t/p) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Generalštab Slovenske vojske is included, to which the units (including the orchestra) are subordinate. Also, the recording was posted on the MORS' website. — Yerpo Eh? 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The orchestra is part of the Generalštab, but does this mean that its work is copyrighted to the Generalštab (or MORS)? Per the copyright act, the performers authorise one from themselves to represent them in regard to copyright.[5] Per [6]: "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright. When the body faces the decision to reveal a copyrighted document, such documents may not be copied, though the applicant may still freely consult the information on the spot."
- This same applies also to the OTRS permission given by MORS (ticket:2007121410015342), where the representative simply stated: "As the property of the content published online is not regulated by specific Slovenian legislation we grant you permission to use the images and all other content from mors.si and slovenskavojska.si with the acknowledgment of the author or source if the author is not given." It is clear that the content published online is regulated by the Slovene copyright legislation. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it means that its work is copyrighted by the Generalštab (or MORS), because the orchestra isn't a legal entity by itself, but an organizational unit subordinate to the Generalštab - definitely not some "third party". Check this record, for example - it says "Organizacija: MORS - Ministrstvo za obrambo RS", and "Založnik: Ministrstvo za obrambo". — Yerpo Eh? 16:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- An organisation that was established in 1996 and has 58 employed people [7] is not a legal entity? How can it employ people if it is not a legal entity? By the way, the copyright law (Article 119) does not even demand that a group of performers is a legal entity in any other way than that they elect a representative. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you even read my previous comment in full? Its work is copyrighted by MORS. This isn't some band of randomly gathered musicians who at some point said "hey, let's get serious, we'll democratically elect one of us to represent us". This is the army. It's beside the point, but I'm quite sure that the members of the orchestra get their paychecks with "MORS" on top, not "Orkester Slovenske vojske" - you can ask User:Žiga if you're interested. The constructive thing to do here would be to write an e-mail to MORS and simply ask them whom the copyright of performance belongs to, if you're not convinced. Your pseudo-legalese, on the other hand, is not constructive. — Yerpo Eh? 08:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read your comment in full. I don't completely agree with your argumentation (actually more "pseudo-legalese" than mine, because I've only stated what is and what is not in the act and expressed my doubt about some of your badly sourced inferences), but you're correct, it will be bettter to send them an e-mail than to argue here.
- The file could also possibly be covered as an "official work" per [8] (pg. 28), which states: "Although the law based on the example of the Berne Convention discusses only official texts, in the frame of official jurisdictions other categories of authored works also often appear as parts of the official text, its annex or independently (e.g. urban planning maps in spatial files; drawings of traffic signs; drawings of the national coat-of-arms, of municipal coats of arms, of flags and the music of the national anthem; sketches and plans from the patent file after the official publication of the patent). In its purpose these works do not differ from official texts, therefore it should be regarded that they are exempt of copyright law too." However, it is not completely clear if this also refers to performances or only to the notes of the anthem, which have been published in the Official Gazette,[9] because it is mentioned alongside the drawings of the coats of arms and flags, which have also been published in the gazette. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't read your comments, but I think national anthems(!!!) are recognized as an official state symbol and are as such exempt from copyright protection. As regards to performance itself: If I am not wrong this file was obtained from a governmental website (military orchestra), and their work is either in public domain or Wikimedia CC compatible licence. We even have a template for such cases - PD-MORS (on sl wiki) and {{MORS}} (on Commons). --Miha (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to Trampuž (Copyright and the Related Rights Act with Commentary. GV. 1997.), the text and the music of the national anthem qualify as official works, because they have been published in the Official Gazette.[10] However, the copyright is treated in the copyright act separately from the related rights. Whereas the work is not copyrighted, the performers' rights still have to be considered. The recording itself has not been published as an official work. I've sent an e-mail request about the copyright holder on recordings of the Slovene Army Orchestra to the MORS (Ministry of Defence) several days ago, but have not received any reply, which means in my opinion they don't have a clue. The MORS has just reused a third-party work. As it is evident e.g. from this or this page ("contracting authority: Slovene Army Orchestra"), the orchestra presents itself as a legal entity, working under the auspice of the Ministry, and there is no evidence of an exclusive transfer of the related rights between the two entities. I may go to find some CD or DVD with the music of the orchestra, but in general, I have no reason to assume otherwise. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- The catalogues don't prove that the Orchestra is a legal entity, but merely that its name is used as a trademark (see the logos). On the other hand, there are at least two bibliographic entries on the MORS website (1, 2) which clearly state MORS as a corresponding organization. I believe such specific references leave no doubt about copyright. — Yerpo Eh? 09:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt these bibliographic entries state MORS is the copyright holder. It states "glasba in priredba, composed and arranged by Jani Šalamun" and "[besedilo, text Ljubo Vošnjak ; foto, photo Fantasy d.o.o., Foto Bobo]". The deduction that the copyright holder on the music, the text, and the photos is MORS just because MORS is stated in the field 'Organisation' is an unfounded interpretation. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Stating the corresponding organization is as specific as it gets, short only of saying "© MORS". But this is again getting tangential to the topic. — Yerpo Eh? 11:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- The corresponding organisation merely organised the project, but individual authors retained the copyright on their work; there is no evidence of any transfer of copyright. See also these entries: in all cases, the responsibility / author item states "Orkester slovenske vojske", not MORS. For example, in this case, if the copyright holder would be MORS, the entry would state this and would not mention only RTV Slovenia and the orchestra. Also COBISS 8300803, the stated 'author' is Orkester slovenske vojske. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Slovene army orcherstra ("Orkester slovenske vojske") is an organisational entity within MORS, so unless it is stated otherwise, the same rules apply as for the parent organisation. The national anthem, which is made available on their website is an official record which is used for various international sports events and can be performed/played on every occasion unless it is used to express hatred for Slovenia or directed against certain groups of people. --Miha (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Citations needed. The above-mentioned source on official works does not mention that this recording would be an official work, and the remaining linked sources cite the Slovene Army Orchestra, not MORS, as the author / the responsible entity. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your doubt would be justifiable in any other setting, but this is the army. The orchestra is headquartered in a barracks, its members are soldiers and it is a unit within the organizational structure of the General Staff (here is one reference). — Yerpo Eh? 08:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is there some special rule about the army in the copyright act that I have missed? Every military unit has its commander, who represents it officially. We need a specific source stating that the copyrights have been transfered from the orchestra to the ministry, otherwise this is pure speculation that goes against the sources cited above. As to the employment mentioned above, there are plenty of sources that state "he is employed by the Slovene Army Orchestra" (not MORS). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The laws state principles, not every possible case. We already concluded that the Orchestra is a unit within the organizational structure of the General Staff. And if the law (article 39) clearly states that all units are subordinate to the General Staff, with its Chief of Staff clearly specified as the responsible for the work of all subordinates (article 44), then it's you who has to prove with a specific source that copyright is treated differently. To remind you, the Central Catalogue of Information of Public Character does include the General Staff.
- By the way, your sources say "employed in the orchestra" (not "by the orchestra"), in the same sense as "employed in a barracks". How is this relevant is beyond me. — Yerpo Eh? 09:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll try to get a more specific source to confirm this reasoning. It could be that this work is also free per the following: military persons are public employees.[11] Per [12] (pg. 34), at least the information commissioner has published the opinion that the works by public employees are free. However, the opinion of the commissioner has been designated as 'theological': "The information commissioner comes with a teological explanation to the argumentation that access to the works created by public employees is free." Does 'theological' mean that her opinion is badly founded? In any case, the source seems to give support to this statement rather than dispute it. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is another problem to be resolved: the music has been published by Stanko Premrl (d. 1965), and it differs from the one in the Official Gazette. Whereas the gazette contains a simple monophonic melody,[13] the orchestra performs the polyphonic version. The monophonic version is considered an official work, because it has been published as part of an official document; the polyphonic has not been. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Himna_Republike_Slovenije.jpg){kind=link}
- Even so, this recording was taken and made as part of this entity's official duties. As such it is a work of the Slovene government (its organisational unit), and according to 9th article of the Slovene copyright act this is exempt from copyright. --Miha (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Therefore, the recording is not protected by the related rights, however the original polyphonic melody is still copyrighted. The orchestra has recorded a number of copyrighted songs as "part of its official duties", including all that are cited at COBISS 229947136. This does not make these melodies free of copyright. The Information Commissioner has clearly stated that "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright. When the body faces the decision to reveal a copyrighted document, such documents may not be copied, though the applicant may still freely consult the information on the spot."[14] Per [15] According to the COBISS link, the melody may have even been arranged by Jože Privšek, who died in 1998. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is still anthem - and solely because an orchestra can not perform it otherwise as it did here, it had to be adapted slightly. But I don't think this qualifies as a separate work. The melody is still same; i think we should ask an experienced musician for his opinion. --Miha (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Derivative works: "Derivative works, according to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101, are defined as follows: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization ... [....] As opposed to an exact copy or minor variation of a work (e.g. the same book with a different title), which does not create a new copyright, a derivative work creates a new copyright on all original aspects of the new version." --Eleassar (t/p) 07:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are good reasons to believe that this specific case (national anthem) is an exception to the guideline you've stated. This version of anthem is performed on all public national holidays (such as day of independence and unity, statehood day, etc.) and official sport events. It is still work by Stanko Premrl - the same setting of a poem to music. --Miha (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bhutan_National_Anthem.png){kind=link}
- You are driving us in circles. Yerpo has already made clear that anthem is an official work and as such exempt from copyright issues. --Miha (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yerpo and me have only come to the agreement that most probably, there are no performers' rights on the recording in the source country, because it has been recorded by the public employees. This has nothing to do with the copyright on the melody, which differs from the one that has been officially published in the Official Gazette. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You must be deaf claiming that these two melodies are not same. MORS published is as a free artwork, and it is a trustworthy institution. --Miha (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is apparent: the official one is monophonic, the other one is polyphonic; the official one is in B-flat major, the other one is in C-major etc. For comparison: [19][20] (pg. 20). MORS can't publish third party artwork as a free artwork. The Information Commissioner has clearly stated that "When acquiring information from third parties, due care has to be given to the protection of information copyright." I'm already repeating myself now, so I guess it's not me who is deaf. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Both versions of same melody (a simple monophonic one, one for orchestra, and one for choir) are written by the same composer and the law only states that his version is to be performed on official events. According to the law (already stated above), we are free to perform anthem and there is a certain degree of freedom how it can be performed, which however is not covered by copyright but by performers rights. So various versions are performed on various official events [21] [22] [23]. The version we host on Commons is one from MORS (its organisational unit Orkester slovenske vojske, to be more precise), but as already stated above it is exempt from copyright and related affairs as part of official duties. --Miha (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the Intellectual property office of the Slovene government to get an official answer to clarify what is copyright status of national anthem. --Miha (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I think that you've asked the wrong question: instead, you should have asked whether the orchestral version of the national anthem is copyrighted, because only the simplified and transpositioned choral one has been published in the act, and Article 5 of the act [24] states that the choral version is the national anthem. The act (Article 20) also states that the anthem may be freely performed only in non-commercial official settings. I still fail to see per what source the notation of the orchestral version is covered by the performers' rights and copyrighted to the MORS. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I asked precisely this question - about variations to the versions published in the official gazette.
- [...] zanima me kakšen je avtorsko pravni položaj himne? Ali je kot uradni državni simbol oproščena avtorske zaščite in se jo lahko vključno z uglasbitvijo smatra kot javno last? V uradnem listu je bila namreč objavljena zgolj preprosta verzija in za to je mogoče sklepati, da se v skaldu z zakonodajo smatra kot javno delo, objavljeno v uradnem glasilu, in kot tako oproščeno avtorske zaščite. V praksi pa se tako na državnih proslavah, kot podelitvah športnih nagrad uporabjlajo druge različice Premrlove uglasbitve (zborovksa različica, orkesterska razlicica) - ali je treba v tem primeru še vedno spoštovati določila zakona o avtorskih pravicah, ki delo smatra za avtorsko zaščiteno, kjer je za objavo in reproduciranje vsake kopije (v tem primeru melodije/notnega zapisa) treba pridobiti soglasje dedičev, glede na to da skladateljeva dela še niso v javni lasti, saj od njegove smrti še ni poteklo 70 let. [...]
- --Miha (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I asked precisely this question - about variations to the versions published in the official gazette.
And answer: "Glasba in besedilo državne himne spadata med uradna besedila v smislu 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP. Gre torej za stvaritev, ki ne uživa avtorskopravnega varstva. Razlog za to je zagotoviti njihovo prosto in poljubno reproduciranje." It says, that text and arrangments of national anthem are exempt from copyright protetcions, according to the ZASP (9/1. article 2), because it should be guaranteed that it is possible to freely reproduce it -> everything is ok with this file. --Miha (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate if you sent this to the OTRS so that we may verify the reply as a) we have to be sure that it is the full reply, b) there is no information about who wrote this message, and c) it goes against the Act Regulating the Coat-of-Arms, Flag and Anthem of the Republic of Slovenia and the Flag of the Slovene Nation (Article 20), which states that "It is not allowed to perform the anthem for commercial advertising or designation of services."[25] --Eleassar (t/p) 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)