Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Because the image is there: File:Morro dos Prazeres (RJ) - Visit 2010.jpg 115.69.63.229 00:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can be deleted speedily - is blank and will remain so. The "uploader," Oalexander-En (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a fake logo, based on an existing institution and existing logo. 89.84.27.13 11:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Upload by APRIL-Fisher. April 1st hoax Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Verwechslung! Das Bild zeigt nicht das denkmalgeschützte Haus Nr. 82 sondern den davorstehenden Neubau. Enzyklopädischer Wert ist nicht gegeben. Hinnerk11 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request / no encyclopedic value given Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No permission to photograph the people (violation of personality rights - one depicted requested deletion)1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 23:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Genehmigung vor die Personen auf diesem Bild zu fotografieren. --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied; request of depicted person, personality rights violation per missing consent, as required per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The picture has been scanned from a German-language book published in 1971 (I have updated the Library of Congress info on that book), so for it to be on Commons it would need to be a work of the Government of Japan, but this is not clear. All we have is a picture likely taken on a Japanese gunboat or submarine, but it could have been taken by someone in the crew. Why are we assuming that the picture is authored by the Government of Japan? Fowler&fowler (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- The original image has been taken by a crewmember of I-29. It is obvious, that this crewmember is japanese. Therefore the japanese copyrights are applicable, because I-29 was in 1943 definitely in the area of responsibility of the government of japan. The copyright tag does not mean that the japanese government itself has to be the author. It is irrelevant that this image has been scanned from a german book.--Kl833x9 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- PS: Why you (a professor of indian history) are so intent to delete this image ? --Kl833x9 (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind my motivations, but we need a source with photo credit information. We can't assume that it is taken under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. Whom did the book credit for the photo? Fowler&fowler (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why we can't assume that it is taken under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government, if the submarine is definitely a japanese ? I meant no offense by asking about your motivations, just fearing things like this. Of course I would like to have more provenance, but as you know allready the book doesn't provide it. By the way: You have direct access to the library of concress, maybe you can complete further information. --Kl833x9 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I found a source, which states that the picture was indeed taken on the Japanese submarine (not by someone on the German submarine during transfer). I've added that to the picture. So, if you agree, I will remove the deletion template. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Kl833x9 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closing deletion nomination. Right attribution for the license is now in place. Fowler&fowler (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
that micronation does not exist Antemister (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Phanlinhhn violated COM:OVERWRITE, the original file has been here for 4 years. Fry1989 eh? 17:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: original restored Denniss (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Zero information about this micronation, even online. Removed from Commons "Flags of Micronations". Centralismo (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: en:Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory was deleted with the comment does not meet even the really low standards of notability for micronations
. One remaining use on ko:마이크로네이션 목록 which would need to be removed to satisfy COM:INUSE. That use was added after the enwiki article was deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
absolutely no description Antemister (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
completely nonsensical fake photo 91.141.85.237 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep Example for photomontage and image on a user page. --Eva K. is evil 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)- Keep Inside project scope for it is used on several project pages. -- smial (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep es ist kein Fake, es ist als Fotomontage gekennzeichnet. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - nice picture, good example for photomontage. -- Felix König ✉ 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep see Felix König --kaʁstn 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it says it's a photomontage in the description --Church of emacs (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept: in COM:SCOPE, used on dewp. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Es handelt sich um eine Fotomontage. Siehe ausführliche Begründung auf der Diskussionsseite. Jochen (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Und genau das steht unmittelbar unter dem Bild. --Ralf Roleček 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedykept: im Projektrahmen, siehe Begründung oben. + Datei ist eingebunden in der Wikipedia. (in COM:SCOPE + used on dewp + de.wikibooks --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Motopark (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: see cited dr . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File does not qualify as PD-TEXT. Font is not uniform (compare "n's" in "nation"), guitar pick w/ shading, textured typeface, etc. Clearly meets TOO. Levdr1lp / talk 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: USCO Circular 1, Copyright Basics, page 3:
- "Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:...mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring;"
As a general rule a typeface, even one that has been designed for a single purpose, does not give rise to a copyright in the USA. Other countries, notably the UK, have very different rules. . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File does not qualify as PD-TEXT. Font is not uniform (compare "T's" in "The" and "Project"), textured typeface, etc. Likely meets TOO. Levdr1lp / talk 04:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT. Red background to "Classic" probably pushes over TOO. Levdr1lp / talk 04:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Background spatter likely pushes this over TOO. File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT. Levdr1lp / talk 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Green-yellow spatter likely pushes this over TOO. File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT. Levdr1lp / talk 04:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Wavy text likely pushes this over TOO. File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT. Levdr1lp / talk 04:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3D text w/ fading color likely pushes this over TOO. File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT. Levdr1lp / talk 04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: "mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" does not qualify . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, copy of File:RADM Lära Connor United States Special Forces..jpg Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This file must be deleted as wished by the author himself Himanis Das talk
07:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator/original uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As a general rule we do not delete files at the request of the uploader unless there is a good reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Inadequate size for the intended usage Aat (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, User:Aat is the uploader and also the one who requested deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: We do not generally delete files at the request of the uploader. A crop of this image is in use on WP:FR, so this should be kept for license history. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
do not invent flags of micronations which do not exist Antemister (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, and point out that this isn't even the valid flag of the imaginary nation of Anthelia. See: Anthelia entry & flag on Micronations Wikia Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
do not invent flags of micronations which do not exist Antemister (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator and note that the Indochinese Union did actually exist in history, Encyclopedia Britannica reads: "...Indochinese Union, which the French created in 1887. The union consisted of the colony of Cochinchina and the four protectorates of Annam, Tonkin, Cambodia, and Laos." However the upload page says that the flag WILL be in use in 2014, although it is now only 2013. I think someone is spoofing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
completely invented Antemister (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to contain the EU flag colors (blue and yellow) plus white for the white race. It's rather stupid and definitely unofficial... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Yet another made up flag in "Flags of Micronations" which seems to be a hotbed of this sort of activity. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as a copyright violation, but a user removed the tag. Stefan4 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not a valid speedy. the status is up for discussion. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- As it is an obvious copyright violation, it should just be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a copyright violation. If the Seatle Seahawks logo is copyrighted, why shouldn't be this? - Fma12 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not even to be debated : obvious copyright violation. Kathisma (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- As it is an obvious copyright violation, it should just be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as a copyright violation, but a user removed the tag. Stefan4 (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was not a valid speedy. If this is from the United States then it is too simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more complex than the second logo here, so it is unquestionably copyrightable in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see this logo so simple to be free of copyright. - Fma12 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete a relatively complex wave + text => enough to be copyrightable. Originality threshold is for logos consisting in one or two very basic shapes or in simple lettering. Kathisma (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more complex than the second logo here, so it is unquestionably copyrightable in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of file deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mrt3366. Stefan4 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
doubled picture and worse quality, see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Emil 1869.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture, see File:Stolperstein Siegen Emde Gustav.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture, see File:Stolperstein Siegen Gerhards Paul.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Emil 1880.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture, see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Hans.jpe Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Ingeborg.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Lina geb Chambré.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
double picture, see File:Stolperstein Siegen Meyer Lina geb Levy.jpeg Stolpersteineuploader (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of "duplicate" (doubled picture). Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution, blurred. and Wikimedia has better photos of this building. Motacilla (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Unique angle, showing features not visible in other photos (eg that side door, depth of the porch(?)).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo seems to have been copied from http://www.neuritas.eu/ which is under a CC license that is not compatible with Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: CC-NC-ND . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Bättre bilder finns, används inte. Spegelreflex (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator: "Better pictures available of same subject, this photo not in use on project" (free translation. And yes, nominator is right, there are a lot better photos of this gent in his category. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File:This is Dakota Seth Divine- He is setting the standard for the Divine men from all across the globe- He is from a clan that originated in Ireland- 2013-10-10 20-54.jpg
[edit]odd title, unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
copyvio, screen capture of tv show Mjrmtg (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Although the coin may be PD, there is no indication, such as exif data or a larger version, that the photograph was taken by the uploader. Since this is not a two-dimensional object, it looks very much as if it's been downloaded from the Internet, rather than photographed by the uploader. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
author and uploader have different names, no exif data or larger versions to suggest it's self made, looks like a random addition from the Internet Jimfbleak (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not PD simple. . HombreDHojalata.talk 12:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not PD simple. . HombreDHojalata.talk 12:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (better light) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (maybe a bit better light) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The picture was taken between July 1943 when Bose arrived in Singapore to lead the INA and August 1945 when he died. It was not in public domain in India before 1 January 1996. Therefore PD-India-URAA does not apply and it cannot be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Added later: see my post below about Singapore copyright. Fowler&fowler (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP: See the edited description page |Permission=PD-India (See below in the license header). I think now the problem is fixed. Krantmlverma (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, for not seeing this earlier. I'm afraid PD-India does not apply at all. It was taken in Japanese-occupied Singapore and is in the Singapore National Archives, and still under copyright. Their page there says, Viewing permitted. Use and reproduction by permission only. It is actually now a candidate for speedy deletion. Fowler&fowler (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The picture was taken between July 1943, when Bose arrived in Asia from Germany, and Augst 1945, when he died. Consequently, it cannot be in PD-India-URAA, since it was not in the public domain in India before 1 January 1996. Therefore it can't be on Commons Fowler&fowler (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't you just confusing things?? The Indian copyright term says that, "works published prior to 1 January 1953 are considered public domain" and now you have some other stuffs. And how can you justify yourself?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- (a) Yes, it would be in the Public Domain in India if indeed it was first published in India before 1953. That is not clear. It was taken, to be sure, in Japanese-held Burma between July 1943 and August 1945 when Bose died. But, where was it first published? (b) A bigger problem is that even if it is satisfies PD-India, it is not in the public domain in the US, which requires in addition, the PD-India-URAA tag. That says, the image should have been in the public domain in India by 1 January 1996, ie. to have been published before 1941, which this image clearly was not. So, it cannot be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- PS It is a little confusing, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#PD-India_.26_PD-India-URAA Fowler&fowler (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- (a) Yes, it would be in the Public Domain in India if indeed it was first published in India before 1953. That is not clear. It was taken, to be sure, in Japanese-held Burma between July 1943 and August 1945 when Bose died. But, where was it first published? (b) A bigger problem is that even if it is satisfies PD-India, it is not in the public domain in the US, which requires in addition, the PD-India-URAA tag. That says, the image should have been in the public domain in India by 1 January 1996, ie. to have been published before 1941, which this image clearly was not. So, it cannot be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Even if published in India (which we don't know for sure), the URAA prevents our keeping it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality family snap Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially per Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The picture was taken in 1951. Consequently PD-India applies, but not PD-India-URAA, which requires the image to have been in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996, which it clearly was not. Therefore it cannot be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The building is from 1980, so the architect can't have been dead for 70 years yet. Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image with better light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar image (clearer) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar (clearer) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar, clearer image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar (clearer) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of music group with qestionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE, no encyclopaedic use, we have better images of Gaisberg as well as Street lights. Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE, what is it? unusable Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
blurry, without description, encyclopaedic value? we have a lot of Category:Stadtpark, Vienna Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. I can't see, what is this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't speak German, so I don't know what the German caption says. It may say that the flickr uploader regarded this as a simple tourist photo.
I suggest the uploader's caption and intentions are irrelevant, when the image itself is in scope. River commerce is in scope, and that is something the image shows. Historic stone bridges are in scope, and this too is something the image shows. Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong. German caption? Which German caption??? The image caption is totally not of interest but the image: the main subject of the image is guy in front of that watercraft. As such it makes it a simple tourist photo and it is not within the project scope, so Delete. BTW, much better alternatives of that vessel do exist. --High Contrast (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- You acknowledge we have ten other images of the vessel? Isn't your acknowledgment of the ten other images an acknowledgment that you recognize images of this vessel are in scope? You are entitled to think the other images are superior. Please recognize your personal judgment that this image is inferior doesn't make the image "out of scope".
The image shows a guy, a notable vessel, and a notable stone bridge.
I took another look at COM:Project Scope, and drew a blank at figuring out which passage you figured applied. I request you spell out what you mean by quoting the specific passage. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You acknowledge we have ten other images of the vessel? Isn't your acknowledgment of the ten other images an acknowledgment that you recognize images of this vessel are in scope? You are entitled to think the other images are superior. Please recognize your personal judgment that this image is inferior doesn't make the image "out of scope".
- You are wrong. German caption? Which German caption??? The image caption is totally not of interest but the image: the main subject of the image is guy in front of that watercraft. As such it makes it a simple tourist photo and it is not within the project scope, so
- Changed to Keep. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Changed to
The initial rationale was sufficient enough, Tuválkin. For a user like you, Geo Swan, who is active here for years, you know pretty less. Read this: Commons:PS#Examples - first point. And again: the main subject is not the Stone Bridge and not the ship itself but guy standing in front of it. As such it is a private photo of a person and a simple holiday snap. And, Geo Swan, this is no question of inferiority or superiority but a question of scope of this media host. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- High Contrast, thanks for the condescending tone. Were I 14 y.o. and I’d probably impressed. Now, try this for size, no gloves: Your original nomination was useless crap. (Were I an admin and you’d be blocked for 24 h over frivolous DRs.) Saying that «Commons is no private photo album» is random noise, as what may have been shot as a private photo may be true gold for Commons due to any particular aspect of the photo that was incidental upon the original photographer’s intents. In this case, the ship on the background. If we didn’t have other, much better, photos of this ship, this photo would be a valuable asset for us — not ideal, but the only available depiction of this ship: Obviously, one bad photo is much better than no photo at all. Only your clarification comment, pointing out to the fact that other photos of the same ship exist, had any value, and convinced me to vote delete — but it was still incomplete, because when one says «we have better photos of so-and-so» a link is all but mandatory, and that’s why I felt I had to add it to the discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is what it is: a tourist photo. Again: read COM:PS. BTW: You seem to have a massive need to throw out your feelings to the world. Have fun. --High Contrast (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am disappointed you didn't take the time to quote the passage(s) from COM:PS you think support your position that this image is not in scope. Should I assume it was "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on..."
- I think the photographer's intent should be irrelevant. If a tourist takes a snapshot, on their vacation, that nevertheless captures something that falls within our scope, we should keep the image, just as iff an exhibitionist takes a picture of his or her organs of generation, because they are proud of those organs -- and yet they happen too take that image in a way that it can serve as an educational image, their exhibitionist intent is irrelevant.
- Are you really suggesting here that we should delete images, taken by tourists, that are potentially useful for an educational purpose, merely because the photographer's intent was to document their vacation?
- I sometimes encounter contributors here, who say something like "I can't imagine how this would be useful," where there is no really tactful way of telling them the fault doesn't lie in the image or passage itself. Rather, in many instances, their comment merely documents a failure of imagination on their part. In this case, the vessel in question is a passenger excursion boat. Are you telling me you can't imagine instances where it would be more useful to have an image of an excursion vessel with one or more actual tourists in the shot? Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think our nominator is overlooking how extremely rare it is to find working vessels that use their original steam engines. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you really think I "disrespect" that ship? Not really?? --High Contrast (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just looked at Category:Empire State Building, Category:Statue of Liberty and Category:CN Tower. We have hundreds of images of these structures. Guess what -- lots of those images were taken by tourists! Some of these image also show tourists!
- Consider File:EdgeWalk CN Tower.JPG and File:Pessoaschaodevidro.jpg -- which I suggest are superior to similar photos without tourists. The mere presence of tourists, at tourist venues, seems like a lousy reason to delete an image.
- Does COM:Project Scope, or any other policy, place a cap on the number of images we should have on a particular object? I don't believe policy states a cap. It might seem like common sense that there is no problem having hundreds of images of high profile objects, but we should cap the number of lower profile objects. But I am not aware of any policy that mandates capping the number of images. We aren't running out of bytes, if we start having lots of valid images of this steam tug the appropriate thing to do is to start adding subcategories -- not deletion.
- I don't think it should be our role to act as art critics. Yes, let's delete clearly inferior images when we acquire clearly superior images. I dispute this image is clearly inferior. Rather I suggested there are context where images that show tourists visiting the steam tug will be superior to images without the tourists. Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you really think I "disrespect" that ship? Not really?? --High Contrast (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I’m convinced, and I’m therefore changing my vote to Keep. The presence of tourists at a tourism attraction needs to be documented and in some situations their presence on the image may be preferable. Having a human figure on a photo of a structure helps illustrating its scale, in general. Thanks Geo Swan for reming me of this aspect of the question. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I’m convinced, and I’m therefore changing my vote to
- Delete or crop only useful content. Commons have more the enough examples of tourists snapshots already and there is no need to import every personal photo possible. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- You want to crop this photo to be “useful”? That is, do you seriously think it is even possible to crop off the tourist on this photo to isolate anything but background incidentals? Did you read the arguments favouring this photo as in scope because it is an interesting alternative to the others of the same subject because it shows a tourist? Did you see the photo at all, or is this is just busybody boilerplate prattle? -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: We have several better images of the tug and the bridge is de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this really PD-ineligible? It is text but not standard text. MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - see Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pieter Kuiper's reasoning. TBrandley (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - ineligible for copyright, see Commons:TOO#United States. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple for copyright. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Compare to American Dad logo, not a standard font. design above TOO Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I kept similar logos before, but reading a little bit more I must change my opinion and say this logo is above TOO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not convinced. Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. I have nominated the logo for deletion in the past. Taivo (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept USCO Circular 1, Copyright Basics, page 3:
- "Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:...mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring;"
As a general rule a typeface, even one that has been designed for a single purpose, does not give rise to a copyright in the USA. Other countries, notably the UK, have very different rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
File likely does not qualify for PD-TEXT due to shading effect on background star. Levdr1lp / talk 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Has been deleted by Jameslwoodward who somehow missed to close this. I agree with the nomination and its deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, not used for personal purposes. Ubcule (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear subject, no description, blurry, tourist shot, COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
IMHO above TOO Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like basic geometry to me. Keep Fry1989 eh? 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I informed the uploader about OTRS procedure. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- The individual elements (Austrian national flag cockade and latitude and longitude lines of globe) would almost certainly not be copyrightable under United States laws. Not sure about the combination of the two, and I have no idea about Austrian laws... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
To get an idea about the related Austrian case law I would like to refer to some interesting decisions of the Supreme Court of Austria that do not ask for a higher TOO in case of applied art (other than the German case law) but simply requires in a decision from 2001 that the resulting work appears to be a piece of art where the traits of the artist can be recognized. Let me quote from the decision from 2001 of the Supreme Court of Austria that established following principles:
- Der urheberrechtliche Schutz derartiger Leistungen setzt nicht voraus, dass eine "gewisse Werkhöhe" erreicht wird. Für das Vorliegen eines Werks der bildenden Kunst ist nur entscheidend, dass das Schaffensergebnis objektiv als Kunst interpretierbar ist. Diese Voraussetzung ist erfüllt, wenn es mit den Darstellungsmitteln der bildenden Künste durch formgebende Tätigkeit hervorgebracht und zum Anschauen bestimmt ist (SZ 65/51 = EvBl 1993/36 = MR 1992, 199 [Walter] = ÖBl 1992, 81 = WBl 1992, 340 = GRURInt 1993, 565 - Bundesheer-Formblatt ua).
- Schutzvoraussetzung ist aber, dass die Leistung individuell eigenartig ist: Sie muss sich vom Alltäglichen, Landläufigen, üblicherweise Hervorgebrachten abheben. Beim Werkschaffenden müssen persönliche Züge - insbesondere durch die visuelle Gestaltung und durch die gedankliche Bearbeitung - zur Geltung kommen (ecolex 1995, 910 = MR 1996, 107 = ÖBl 1996, 56 = WBl 1995, 514 - Pfeildarstellung mwN). Eine Gebrauchsgrafik ist daher nur dann urheberrechtlich geschützt, wenn sie in diesem Sinn individuell und originell ist (MR 1996, 241 [Walter] = ÖBl 1996, 292 - Hier wohnt mwN).
This rationale refers to two earlier decisions where in one case an arrow was considered to be above the TOO (decision, logo in b/w) and in the other case a design was considered to be below the TOO (decision, design in b/w). In summary, we need to find some artistic trait in the logo that is different from the common-place to consider it above the TOO according to Austrian case law.
In this logo we have two elements. Firstly, we have a globe with a latitude-longitude grid which can be considered to be common-place. The globe is blue with a white grid where blue is an obvious choice for the blue planet. Around the globe we have two simple rings that refer to the colors of the Austrian flag. In this way the logo puts Austria and/or the Austrian people in a world-wide context. But it does this by combining two common-place symbols in a straight-forward manner. I fail to see here any artistic trait in the execution of any of these two elements. In my opinion, this appears to be similar to the case where the Austrian flag was incorporated in a simple design covering a form sheet (which was found to be below the TOO as it was considered to be a simple and straight-forward combination of two common-place design elements) and different from the case where the arrow was individually shaped (to quote: Das Firmensymbol der Klägerin beschränkt sich nicht darauf, Schnelligkeit durch einen Pfeil auszudrücken, sondern bezieht durch die einem Kometenschweif ähnliche Gestaltung des Pfeilschaftes den Fahrtwind mit ein.)
I also agree with AnonMoos that this is below the TOO according to US law. Hence, I think we can keep this logo. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
According to COM:FOP#Netherlands, croping of the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by FOP, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. As we have File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 1.JPG which does show the work in its surroundings the rest of these images are cops and are not covered by the FOP.
- File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 2.JPG
- File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG
- File:Khojaly massacre memorial in Hague.JPG
LGA talkedits 08:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG and delete the others. #3 is definately not a crop of File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 1.JPG as it is taken from a different angle. File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG is in that grey area of arguably a copyright violation but I think it passes FOP. If any editors are well-versed in relevant copyright law as it relates to FOP, please chime in, what we need here is an informed opinion, not just !votes from people like me who don't even live in that country. File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 2.JPG and File:Khojaly massacre memorial in Hague.JPG may or may not be literal crops by they add very little value beyond File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG and they have little or no legal legs to stand on. Davidwr (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG may not be a physical crop of the image, it is however a crop of the wider scene, and since we have an image that is of the wider scene we should not keep this one. LGA talkedits 20:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- My contention is that, as is, File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG qualifies for FOP based on sufficient other things in the scene. I will defer to legal experts. The line has to be drawn somewhere. One could argue, possibly successfully, that File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 1.JPG does not qualify because one could take an even wider view. I would not agree with such an argument, but it could be made and if the photograph was taken in a country were "freedom of panorama" was very narrow, it might even prevail in court. On the other hand, I think the presence of the garden, tree, buildings, cars, etc. in the background are sufficient enough for this to qualify under FOP. Within a week, it will be clear what the consensus opinion is. However, barring input from an expert in Dutch copyright law, I'm not likely to change my mind. Davidwr (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Khojaly Genocide memorial 3.JPG may not be a physical crop of the image, it is however a crop of the wider scene, and since we have an image that is of the wider scene we should not keep this one. LGA talkedits 20:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all The framings show both the monument, adjacent components and surroundings and none of the images has such a tight crop that it shows the monument only. Besides, from what I see the law doesn't say anything about the crop itself. Brandmeister (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see the problem -- these all show the work in context -- trees, grass, etc. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Latvian Academy of Sciences (building) 1
[edit]Building from the 1950s, so the architect can't have been dead for 70 years yet.
- File:Detail of Architecture - Riga - Latvia - 06.jpg
- File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8228947281).jpg
- File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8228952113).jpg
- File:Latvian Palace of Culture and Science (8230018982).jpg
- File:Old KGB building Riga.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Latvian Academy of Sciences (building) 2
[edit]No Panorama Freedom in Latvia, built by V.V.Shnitnikov who died in 1996.
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4219.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4220.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4221.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4222.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4224.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4226.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4227.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4228.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4229.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4230.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4352.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4353.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4354.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4355.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4356.jpg
- File:16-08-31-Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija-RR2 4357.jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences (building).jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences - panoramio.jpg
- File:Latvian academy of sciences.jpg
- File:LZA augstceltne, Akadēmijas laukums 1, Rīga .JPG
- File:LZA augstceltne, Akadēmijas laukums 1, Rīga 02.JPG
- File:LZA.jpg
- File:Maskavas forštate2.JPG
- File:Maskavas forštate3.JPG
- File:Maskavas forštate4.JPG
- File:Maskavas forštate6.JPG
- File:Maskavas forštate8.JPG
- File:Maskavas forštate9.JPG
- File:Per aspera ad astra.jpg
- File:Riga Petrikirche Blick vom Turm auf die Akedemie der Wissenschaften.JPG
- File:Riga, Latvia (7182829233).jpg
- File:Riga, Latvia, July 2001 (03).jpg
- File:Rīga, Zinātņu akadēmija 2002-11-03.jpg
A.Savin 21:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Согласно статье 1276 четвёртой части Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации — в России и других государствах бывшего СССР:
пункт 2. Допускается свободное использование путем воспроизведения и распространения изготовленных экземпляров, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю, доведения до всеобщего сведения в форме изображений произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и произведений садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, или видных из этого места.[1]
Kalnroze (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Latvian Academy of Sciences (building) 3
[edit]Latvian FOP disallows commercial uses of images of architecture and public art like sculptures and monuments still in copyright, not OK per Commons:Licensing. The building according to w:Latvian Academy of Sciences was designed by architects Osvalds Tīlmanis (d. 1980), Vaidelotis Apsītis (d. 2007), and Kārlis Plūksne (d. 1973), so still within the 70 years posthumous copyright term.
- File:100. 60 1k 1142 2.f - Riga's Academy of Sciences, Latvia 2009 (3926796145).jpg
- File:2013 - panoramio (36).jpg
- File:20150507 32 Riga - Latvian Academy Of Sciences (17456858031).jpg
- File:Academia de Ciencias, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 02.JPG
- File:Academy of Sciences - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Academy of Sciences - panoramio.jpg
- File:Academy Of Sciences In Riga (230101705).jpeg
- File:Akademija1.jpg
- File:Akademijas laukums - panoramio.jpg
- File:Gogoļa iela (2).jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences (building) 20180808.jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences (Example of Stalinist architecture) (23620387241).jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences (Example of Stalinist architecture) (23677077176).jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Latvian Academy of Sciences Building in Riga, Latvia.jpg
- File:Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija (3732339651).jpg
- File:Maskavas Forštate, Latgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (36).jpg
- File:Maskavas Forštate, Latgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (48).jpg
- File:Maskavas Forštate, Latgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (73).jpg
- File:Maskavas Forštate, Latgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (74).jpg
- File:Maskavas Forštate, Latgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio - Zack Knowles.jpg
- File:Riga - Palace of Culture and Science - Pils kultūras un zinātnes - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga 43 (30627375763).jpg
- File:Riga Fernsehturm Blick von der Aussichtsplattform auf die Akademie der Wissenschaften.JPG
- File:Rigas view (1).jpg
- File:Rīga - panoramio (30).jpg
- File:Rīga - panoramio (32).jpg
- File:Stalin's Wedding Cake Side, Riga, Latvia.jpg
- File:Stalin's Wedding Cake, Riga, Latvia.jpg
- File:Zinatnu nams - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zinātņu akadēmija - ogre11 - Panoramio.jpg
- File:Академия наук латвии - panoramio.jpg
- File:Вид на академию и центральный базар - panoramio.jpg
- File:Здание Академии наук. - panoramio.jpg
- File:Латвийская АН, Рига, 2012 Latvian Science Academy - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Латвийская АН, Рига, 2012 Latvian Science Academy - panoramio.jpg
- File:Рига 2013 - panoramio.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Android
[edit]See COM:TOYS.
- File:1956 Matchbox Cadillaac Eldorado.jpg
- File:1970 Matchbox Chevrolet El Camino SS.jpg
- File:1996 Matchbox Volkswagen Beetle Concept 1.jpg
- File:1998 Hotwheels 1965 Chevy coupe.jpeg
- File:1999 Jeepster Toy.jpeg
- File:1999 Matchbox Jeep Grand Cherokee toy.jpg
- File:2002 Opel Speedster toy.jpeg
- File:2004 Mini Cooper S Toy (closed).jpeg
- File:2004 Mini Cooper S Toy (Opened).jpeg
- File:2005 Machbox International CXT.jpg
- File:2005 Matchbox Ford GT Toy.jpeg
- File:2005 Matchbox Scania Sement Mixer Truck.jpg
- File:2005 Matchbox Volkswagen Golf V GTI.jpg
- File:2006 Ford Crown Victoria PPV.jpg
- File:2006 Matchbox Mercedes-benz Unimog U300 trucks.jpg
- File:2006 Mattel Jaguar XK Toy.jpg
- File:2007 Matchbox Ford Transit.jpg
- File:2007 Matchbox Volvo C30.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to have these images deleted, there are hundreds of pictures on Wikimedia commons that are model cars. Seqqis (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that toys are copyrighted and that you can't take photos of them. See for example COM:TOYS and User:Elcobbola/Models. If you see other pictures of model cars, then those should normally also be deleted, unless they are too old. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Turn any of these over and you will see a copyright notice on the bottom -- that's not copyfraud -- they really have a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two categories and one template (!) which read like (almost identical) spam, also plastered on a user page. Even if those were sober encyclopedic articles, they would not belong in Commons, which is a media repository (and good luck at hosting this in any Wikipedia!). Also 17 photos which may have licensing problems but which, regardless of the license used on the file pages, are intended for exclusive use along with this specific content, as implied by this repeated statement: «Todos los derechos sobre las imágenes y vídeos están reservados 2013 Copyright ©»
- Template:Ficha de líder religioso
- Category:Élder Carlos A. Cifuentes
- Category:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1981 (2).jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez - 1980 -.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1966.jpg
- File:Carlos A. Cifuentes 1964.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1980.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1958.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1970.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez -- 1980.jpg
- File:Cifuentes - Colarte 1983.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1983.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1968.jpg
- File:Élder Carlos A. Cifuentes y su Esposa Haydee Guzmán Valenzuela..jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1976.jpg
- File:Élder Carlos A. Cifuentes 1975.jpg
- File:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez 1973.jpg
- File:Élder Carlos A. Cifuentes 1972.jpg
- File:Carlos A. Cifuentes 1975.jpg
-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As Tuválkin suggests, I don't believe that any of these are actually "own work" as claimed. We would need permission from each of the photographers to keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Exclusively images of one person (who I assume is the uploader "CelebLawyersNYC" herself) and nothing else, all unused (and this would be pushing things for the "small number of personal photos" exception anyway!)
Commons is not a personal photo album
- File:Maryse Selit with husband, Howard.jpg
- File:ATTORNEY MARYSE SELIT.JPG
- File:Pro bono lawyer.jpg
- File:MARYSE SELIT ATTORNEY.jpg
- File:MARYSE SELIT, AMERICAN LAWYER.jpg
- File:MARYSE SELIT, ESQ..jpg
- File:MARYSE SELIT, NY LAWYER.jpg
- File:Atty Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit, Esq..jpg
- File:Maryse Selit with husband, Howard Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit.jpg
Ubcule (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc (talk · contribs)
[edit]
A series of images all containing images of "Maryse Selit", none of which appear to have been taken by the subject (no camera metadata or different cameras, different sizes, different whitebalances, etc.). This uploader has uploaded series of self-promotional images before, under a very-slightly-different user name, and other images of this same person were uploaded by a different user, who has since been inactive.
- File:Maryse Selit .jpg
- File:Maryse Selit 4.jpg
- File:Celebrity Lawyer Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Edie Falco and Dr. Maryse Selit attending Annual Berg Ball.jpg
- File:Hilary Swank and Dr. Maryse Selit attending ASPCA Berg Ball 2015.jpg
- File:Dr. Maryse Selit attending ASPCA Bergh Ball honoring Edie Falco and Hilary Swank.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit 3.jpg
- File:Ms America 2011 and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit 2.jpg
- File:Dr. Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit and Mary Bridget Davies.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:MARYSE SELIT, ESQ..JPG
- File:MARYSE SELIT, ATTORNEY.JPG
- File:MARYSE SELIT, ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete While, with one exception, which I have deleted, none of these are the same as those deleted before, this is very close to a {{Speedy}}. These are all self promotional and violate COM:ADVERT. The subject briefly had a page on WP:EN which was deleted because she is not notable according to their standards. Our standards are similar, so we don't need to rehash that question here. Also, as Ellin has pointed out, the subject claims "own work" for all of them but they are obviously not selfies, so someone else actually owns the copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Basvb (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Goku GT ssj4 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All appear to be low-resolution copyvios from the anime "Dragon Ball". This can be confirmed by typing in "Suh Shinron", "Ryan Shinron" and "Ih Shinron" into GIS, and Google translations also include text "Dragon Ball". (Needless to say, I'm suspcious that these are uploader's own work as claimed or that he/she owns the rights to do this).
- File:Suh Shinron o 4 Estrellas.jpg
- File:San Shinron o 3 Estrellas.jpg
- File:Ryan Shinron o 2 Estrellas.jpg
- File:Ih Shinron o 1 Estrella.jpg
Ubcule (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leonardo Lòpez Linares (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:El Barìtono de la Zarzuela Leonardo Lòpez LINARES.jpg
- File:Un Ballo in maschera Leonardo Lòpez Linares.jpg
- File:Linares -UN BALLO IN MASCHERA Teatro Perez Galdòs LAS PALMAS.jpg
- File:Leonardo Lòpez Linares.JPG
- File:Analuz a sus 4 años canta con su Papà Leonardo Lòpez Linares.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand this request ! Is there a copyright problem ? If not why don't keep these files ? --Mandariine (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- oups ! see Commons:Bistro#un baryton verdi :) but why don't ask leonardo to provide an OTRS permission of the photographer at least for this one File:Leonardo Lòpez Linares.JPG ? --Mandariine (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Info As Leonardo Lòpez Linares is the photographied subject, he can hardly be the author, i.e. the photographer. Same image as File:Un Ballo in maschera Leonardo Lòpez Linares.jpg is displayed on a page of deltangoalalirica.com (same resolution). On that page, there is also a version of File:Leonardo_Lòpez_Linares.JPG, in a lower resolution though; and also here. No credit to any photographer, but at the bottom of both pages, one can read "VIctoriangeles producciones". --Myrabella (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)- The same image as File:El Barìtono de la Zarzuela Leonardo Lòpez LINARES.jpg can be found on el25deurquiza blog: same image, in an article published on 12 october 2012 (but maybe the photos of the show were added after). --Myrabella (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- oups ! see Commons:Bistro#un baryton verdi :) but why don't ask leonardo to provide an OTRS permission of the photographer at least for this one File:Leonardo Lòpez Linares.JPG ? --Mandariine (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maid services (talk · contribs)
[edit]User *seems* to have uploaded spam and/or probable copyvios of clipart/stock photography; see comments beside filenames.
- File:Property Dealer.jpg - Watermarks still visible on some images
- File:Hotel staff.jpg - Possible clip art, no general usefulness
- File:Event management.JPG - Atrocious rescaled quality, probably taken from another source
- File:Marketing Solutions.jpg - Rubbish quality, possible stock art model?
- File:Educational solutions.png - Cheap and pointless logo
- File:Domestic Services.jpg - (i) Possible copyvio, lots of different styles, probable clipart with unclear source
- File:Commercial & Industrial.jpg - (i) Spam, (ii) Possible copyvio, lots of different styles, probable clipart with unclear source
Ubcule (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only images which could be replace with wiki markup.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Vituzzu (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MicaelaYoung (talk · contribs)
[edit]These photo's seem to be scans from the book "Montana's Worst Natural Disaster" and as such will in all likelihood be protected by copyright.
- File:Aftermath dam.png
- File:Two Medicine Dam.png
- File:Two Medicine Dam Before.png
- File:Two Medicine Dam After.png
- File:Flood Picture Title Page.png
- File:The Names of the Dead.png
- File:Browning Underwater.png
- File:Browning Before.png
- File:Browning Underwater 2.png
Vera (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator and have also nominated for deletion this user's family pictures uploaded at / near same time. (See deletion requests October 17, 2013). Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The artwork next to the person depicted in these pictures is most likely not free. Permission for the CC-license has to be explicitly given through the OTRS system or the paintings need to be cropped/blurred out.
- File:Ranulfo.jpg
- File:Exposición Ranulfo González López.JPG
- File:Ranulfo González.JPG
- File:Ranulfo González López.jpg
Vera (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of fan/promo photos/movie screenshots, not own work.
- File:Parchaiyan HAseena Moin.jpg
- File:Uncle urfi.jpg
- File:Aurat tera naam shehzori.jpg
- File:Parosi drama.jpg
- File:Aansoo drama ptv.jpg
- File:Haseena Moin's Ankahi.jpg
- File:Sheshadri Meenakshi 1.jpeg
- File:Haseena Moin 4.jpg
- File:Haseena Moin 3.jpg
- File:Haseena Moin 2.jpeg
- File:Actress-meenakshi-seshadri-family-photos (1).jpg
- File:Meenakshi-Seshadri-small-4.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a book cover scan. It is copyrighted. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree it is a book cover scan, and way too recent to be free. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The file incorporates non-free packaging as its primary element. We already have a cropped version of this pic for fair use on en.wiki: en:File:795px-Combos.JPG Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as author. TenPoundHammer (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. The same photo was used for a single cover [1], also appears at higher resolution at [2]. January (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator and Comment See also this image with watermarking from same uploader [3]. It looks like this uploader is taking others photos and bringing them into the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a copyrighted newspaper, Diário Catarinense, and contains parts of other unidentified newspapers in the back. Küñall (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional. Ubcule (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This looks like it was uploaded in good faith from Flickr (where it is licensed as per this file), but it looks just like a straight photograph from an iPhone of the official hotel map, and almost certainly copyrighted by the hotel chain. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Because the wrong name of the mountain 流しのインストーラ (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete -- please use {{Rename}} . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Andrew%27s_Church,_Paull.jpg Keith Chadwick Photography (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Not required anymore. Keith Chadwick 11:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of duplicate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete this good image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal-only files uploaded by Amit marinengineer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent personal images of uploader himself, not used for personal purposes.
Ubcule (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only which should be replace with wiki tables.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Images from movie "Samsara (2011 film)"- copyrighted by Magidson Films, not by uploader aka "I take this photo from de film..."
Cap1000 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely claim of own work on these images from around the second world war. Proper source is needed.
- File:Soldadod04.JPG
- File:Dragoniante.jpg
- File:Soldadod01.jpg
- File:Soldadod03.jpg
- File:Soldadod02.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iharikkrishna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:YS Jagan 2013-10-09 23-58.jpg
- File:Bhama's latest 2013-10-09 23-49.jpeg
- File:VCE Ibrahimbaigh 2013-10-09 22-49.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Colection of advertisement and newspaper articles. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Arne Blomberg Halsband.jpg
- File:Manschettknappar Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Ring, Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Halsband med bakgrund Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Halsband Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Halsband och örhängen Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Ring Nature of Sweden Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Trädet, urklipp från Strömsstadstidningen.png
- File:Arne skapar vasen.jpg
- File:Vasen från urklippet.jpg
- File:Tidningsurklipp praktiskt blomsteruppsättning.jpg
- File:Trädet urklipp.jpg
- File:Urklipp Unik opal-utställning.jpg
- File:Urklipp om Arne Blombergs trädet "som i Tusen och en natt".jpg
- File:Tidningsurklipp Arne Blombergs brudkrona.png
- File:Tidningsurklipp Arne Blombers träd.jpg
- File:Kungahusen handlar smycken av honom, tidningsurklipp.png
- File:Artikel nature of sweden.jpeg
- File:Tidningsurklipp om Arne Blomberg.jpg
- File:Blomberg vid bordet.PNG
- File:Blomberg vid klippa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Рибицький Сергій (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most of files are copyvios from [4]
- File:Луцьк з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Хотин з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Жовква з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Ужгород з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Збараж з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Кременець з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Межиріч з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Новомалин.jpg
- File:Замок з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Замок Чорної вдови з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
- File:Острог з висоти пташиного польоту.jpg
Anatoliy (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, most of pictures from the user (all containing з висоти пташиного польоту - bird's eye view) are from Istorychna Pravda, where they are attributed to Мета-карти (Meta-maps) mapping service. The only other file, File:Новомалин.jpg, according to Google Images, is from the blog http://neo7777vitaha.livejournal.com/19891.html , which is highly unlikely to belong to the uploader — NickK (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ثنا حسنخواه (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions. Other user's uploads were movie posters.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status & unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/865042 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/08/865042.jpg = last modified: 08.09.2008, see also file path, original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/410027/0/concha/garcia/campoy/, credited with: "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") as it was posterior published by 20minutos.es with credits "Cuatro" via:
- http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1273379/0/concha-garcia-campoy/muestras/carino/ (11.01.2012)
- http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1592067/0/concha-garcia-campoy/leucemia/telecinco/ (19.09.2012)
- http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1596034/0/concha-garcia-campoy/telecinco/leucemia/ (23.09.2012)
"Cuatro" indicates to en:Cuatro (TV channel) which broadcasted the TV-program es:Las mañanas de Cuatro, presented by Concha García Campoy from 2006 - 2010. In 2011 - 2012 she was anchor of the morning edition of "Informativos Telecinco" (Telecinco is a sister channel of Cuatro). So this image seems to be most likely a promotional image of channel Cuatro or related press agencies.
Concerning the credit "Foto: 20 minutos" it is widely known that 20minutos.es is cheating massively copyrights configuring copyrighted images from numerous sources with a free license and tagging this images falsely with "Foto: 20 minutos". The whole bandwith of copyright problems concerning 20minutos.es is available via Category:20minutos.es related deletion requests. Gunnex (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator.
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/445698/0/valladolid/cine/querejeta/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/01/26/922333.jpg = last modified: 26.01.2009, see also file path) as it was previously published by several media via (examples):
- http://www.absolutsalamanca.com/ciclo-de-cine-elias-querejeta/ (10.01.2009) = http://www.absolutsalamanca.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/4027506-300x203.jpg (last modified: 10.01.2009)
- http://www.cinetelia.com/calienta-motores-la-53-semana-internacional-de-cine-de-valladolid-seminci.html (23.10.2008) = http://i.bssl.es/cinetelia/2008/10/elias-querejeta.jpg (per file path uploaded in 10.2008, last modified: 05.2009)
- http://www.hoycinema.com/actualidad/noticias/7575-director-mendez-leite-define-elias-querejeta.html (06.08.2007) = http://www.hoycinema.com/archivos/201112/81a9a57c5820873f558646e18314a118_not-elias-querejeta07082007-1.jpg (apparently a reupload of 2011 from 2007)
- http://www.uhu.es/cine.educacion/cineyeducacion/documentalreflexion.htm = http://www.uhu.es/cine.educacion/cineyeducacion/0%20Imagenescine/docreflexion2.gif (last modified: 06.07.2007)
- Background and clothes are similar to those which were used for a documentary of Elías Querejeta (some fragments available via youtube), produced by TV-channel TCM and which was released for cinema on 13.04.2007 (more info) Gunnex (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar, better straightened image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar (clearer) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar, clearer image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded a better file. This is the duplicate Jvdobrich (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded a better file. This is a duplicate. Jvdobrich (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked (amomg other with "[illegible] Photography"). Gunnex (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of football club, taken from club website. Copyright protected Miho (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded a better file. This is a duplicate Jvdobrich (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Dubious copyright status: per [5]. Eleassar (t/p) 21:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this photograph would be freely licensed / in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 21:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-free photograph of a 3D-work (comparable to coins). Eleassar (t/p) 21:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Ubcule (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The data in this file has been merged with other related files and will not be maintained along with them. Aldaron (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The data in this file has been merged with other related files and will not be maintained along with them. Aldaron (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The Flickr license says non-commercial and we don't support that license here. Then there's the issue as to whether Andy Warhol really has agreed to this. WereSpielChequers (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Meets the Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom so too complex for us to keep it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
this is duplicate logo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBeebies.svg) Hector Augustus (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Gone --Denniss (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (unsourced, most likely coming from http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1220866/0/ = http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/1357614/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2011/11/15/1357614.jpg = last modified: 15.11.2011, see also file path, credited with "Foto: EP/AYTO") as "Foto: EP/AYTO" indicates to en:Europa Press (news agency), a Spanish independent, privately held news agency (see also credit for the text). Additional, "AYTO" is most likely the abbreviation of en:Ayuntamiento, the general term for the council of a municipality.
Per 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, (...) o a cualquier otra empresa diferente de 20 minutos." Gunnex (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. I have looked at the 20minutes pages (and I read Spanish well enough to understand 95% without dictionary), and I think also that these photographs which were uploaded are theirs and that they make a plain statement of rights on their pages as Gunnex stated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope ("enak banet" apparently Indonesian for delicious). Apparently attempted to include on userpage, but failed, and he/she hasn't done anything except upload this anyway (Commons is not personal webspace). Ubcule (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://media2.pl/g/600/25462.jpg Malarz pl (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- PD-textlogo and PD-shape. Keep Fry1989 eh? 22:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is - where do "shape and text" end and "the treshold of originality" begins. In my opinion, as we don't have a simple geometric shape (rectangle, circle, oval, triangle) but more sophisticated shapes aligned together in non-symmetrical way, it is some kind of an "artistic arrangement" therefore, just to be on a safe side, I'd say Delete. Masur (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as a copyright violation, but a user removed the tag. Stefan4 (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I did! It's not a valid speedy. This organisation is headquartered in Canada and the logo is not complicated enough to be copyrighted. Keep Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more complex than the second logo here, so it is unquestionably copyrightable in the United States. The Canadian threshold of originality is supposed to be lower than the US one. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- One again another dishonest comparison. Just because this is more complicated does not make this copyrightable, and in fact the two are not even similar in complexity to give us an understanding. File:Best Western logo.svg is more complicated then the image in your link and it's not copyrighted. There's nothing copyrightable about this in the US, it's basic text, a geometric globe and simple wings. Your supposition aside, Canadian TOO is extremely similar to the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- This logo is more complex than both the Best Western logo (which isn't copyrighted) and the car credit city logo (which is copyrighted). It's very simple: if a logo is more complex than an image which has been found to be copyrightable, then the image should be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not more complicated than the Best Western logo. The text and globe are incredibly simple according to US TOO, the only thing is the wings, and those by themselves also would not be considered complicated enough to garnish copyright in the United States. This is not copyrightable according to the United States. Also, you haven't even provided a simpler logo that is copyrighted, you provided a logo which was denied copyright and then tried to claim because this is more complicated that somehow automatically makes this copyrighted which is completely untrue and unfair. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete According to Canada's ToO (lower than the US) the logo is complex enough to be under copyright. - Fma12 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- You just need to use some simple logic:
- If and is unacceptable, then is unacceptable.
- If and is unacceptable, then we don't know whether is acceptable or not.
- If and is acceptable, then is acceptable.
- If and is acceptable, then we don't know whether is acceptable or not.
- Adding wings is more complex than drawing a simple border around a logo. Drawing a simple border is enough to grant copyright. Conclusion: This logo is more complex than the Car Credit City logo. A comparison with that logo therefore suggests that this logo is copyrightable.
- The wings with a globe furthermore looks more complex than the stylised "W" or crown, so this seems to be more complex than the Best Western logo. A comparison with that logo therefore doesn't show anything.
- One check suggests that the logo is copyrightable in the United States whereas the other one doesn't show anything. Furthermore, there is the issue that the threshold of originality of Canada seems to be lower than the one in the United States, which would indicate that this logo is copyrightable in Canada. However, due to the case Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. it is sufficient to show that the logo is protected by copyright in the United States, as all files on Commons have to be free in both the United States and in the source country, per COM:L.
- I realise that the Best Western and Car Credit City logos are approximately equally complex. As with all countries, there are some situations where a court could rule either way, and in those cases, COM:PRP recommends deletion. This is not one of those cases; this logo is clearly more complex than the examples mentioned. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not more complicated than the Best Western logo. The text and globe are incredibly simple according to US TOO, the only thing is the wings, and those by themselves also would not be considered complicated enough to garnish copyright in the United States. This is not copyrightable according to the United States. Also, you haven't even provided a simpler logo that is copyrighted, you provided a logo which was denied copyright and then tried to claim because this is more complicated that somehow automatically makes this copyrighted which is completely untrue and unfair. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- This logo is more complex than both the Best Western logo (which isn't copyrighted) and the car credit city logo (which is copyrighted). It's very simple: if a logo is more complex than an image which has been found to be copyrightable, then the image should be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- One again another dishonest comparison. Just because this is more complicated does not make this copyrightable, and in fact the two are not even similar in complexity to give us an understanding. File:Best Western logo.svg is more complicated then the image in your link and it's not copyrighted. There's nothing copyrightable about this in the US, it's basic text, a geometric globe and simple wings. Your supposition aside, Canadian TOO is extremely similar to the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more complex than the second logo here, so it is unquestionably copyrightable in the United States. The Canadian threshold of originality is supposed to be lower than the US one. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_20180808.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(23620387241).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(23677077176).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){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}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chuckie_DJ.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_m._harandi001063.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_m._harandi036.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The ONLY complicated thing here is the wings, and they're not complicated enough on their own to garnish copyright. There's nothing else copyrightable here, it's an very obvious keep. Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is an obvious delete as it is a lot more complex than the mentioned examples. Compare with File:Family Guy Logo SVG.svg (w:File:Family Guy Logo.svg) which was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- This coming from a user who freely admits they don't think there's complexity differences between basic shapes & fonts and a hand-written signature. You are not the person to make such judgements. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is an obvious delete as it is a lot more complex than the mentioned examples. Compare with File:Family Guy Logo SVG.svg (w:File:Family Guy Logo.svg) which was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete wings + globe + text => enough to be copyrightable. Originality threshold is for logos consisting in one or two very basic shapes or in simple lettering. Kathisma (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Complicated enough to be copyrighted does not mean "this plus this plus this" when all the elements on their own are not complicated enough to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- "...when all the elements on their own are not complicated enough to be copyrighted" => this is stupid : if you generalise this position, no bitmap can be copyrighted at all, as every bitmap is basically made of little coloured squares and squares are simple geometry. Kathisma (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, what's stupid is trying to say that a bunch of PD things all together makes it not PD. Your comparison makes no sense because the squares in a bitmap are not independently separable from what the master image is. If you take away the wings from this image, they're still wings. Fry1989 eh? 04:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- In either case, the wings look more complex than File:Android robot.svg which is copyrighted (search for "VA0001789579" at www.copyright.gov). --Stefan4 (talk)
- The suggested search brought up no results. Would you care to actually link a copyright notice for the robot in a DR for that file? Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Android robot.svg is licensed under CC-BY, so there is no need for a deletion request, but the file is copyrighted. You search here by selecting "registration number" and typing in the number in the search box. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it's copyrighted, the only license that would allow it to be here is a Copyrighted Free Use license. I don't see that on the file or anything similar. So either nominate it, or it's irrelevant to this DR. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Er, the vast majority of files on Commons are copyrighted, but are licensed under CC-BY-SA, CC-zero or other licences, permitting us to use the files. Why do you think that File:Android robot.svg's CC-BY is any different? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it's copyrighted, the only license that would allow it to be here is a Copyrighted Free Use license. I don't see that on the file or anything similar. So either nominate it, or it's irrelevant to this DR. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Android robot.svg is licensed under CC-BY, so there is no need for a deletion request, but the file is copyrighted. You search here by selecting "registration number" and typing in the number in the search box. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The suggested search brought up no results. Would you care to actually link a copyright notice for the robot in a DR for that file? Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- In either case, the wings look more complex than File:Android robot.svg which is copyrighted (search for "VA0001789579" at www.copyright.gov). --Stefan4 (talk)
- No, what's stupid is trying to say that a bunch of PD things all together makes it not PD. Your comparison makes no sense because the squares in a bitmap are not independently separable from what the master image is. If you take away the wings from this image, they're still wings. Fry1989 eh? 04:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- "...when all the elements on their own are not complicated enough to be copyrighted" => this is stupid : if you generalise this position, no bitmap can be copyrighted at all, as every bitmap is basically made of little coloured squares and squares are simple geometry. Kathisma (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Complicated enough to be copyrighted does not mean "this plus this plus this" when all the elements on their own are not complicated enough to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 00:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/954316 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/04/24/954316.jpg = last modified: 24.04.2009, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/692617/0/loquillo/rock/) as it was previously published by 20minutos.es via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/365059/0/entrevista/loquillo/balmoral/ (01.04.2008) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/04/01/789043.jpg and credited with "FOTO: Jorge Paris. (JORGE PARIS)".
The file was uploaded at Commons on 30.04.2010. At this time the CC-license of 20minutos.es was configured with (see e.g. archive from 02.04.2010): "Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos publicados por 20minutos procedentes de los terceros siguientes: Textos, gráficos, informaciones e imágenes que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a Agencias, Reuters, EFE, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, J.M. Nieto o Jorge París."
Btw, an archive of the CC-license from 04.2008 is similar configurated, citing "Jorge París" also as exception... Gunnex (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/714332 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/22/714332.jpg = last modified: 22.11.2007, see also file path, original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/309915/0/premios/television/online/) as it is obviously - per quality - most likely a screenshot of a TV-transmission of es:Premios Iris (España) (or Premios de la Academia de televisión), broadcasted annually by Spanish TV. The 2007er edition (IX Premios Anuales 2006) was transmitted - as I could verify - by en:laSexta on 21.11.2007 (--> es:Anexo:Premios ATV 2006). Lorenzo Milá, Matías Prats and Ana Blanco (shown at the screenshot) are the presenter of 3 nominated TV-programs in the category "Programas informativos". Gunnex (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/482140/0/luis/larrodera/oportunidad/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/07/20/983658.jpg = last modified: 20.07.2009, see also file path) as it was previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/luis-larrodera-presenta-la-gran-oportunidad-en-antena-3/ (19.06.2009, credits: "Antena 3", exif available).
"Antena 3" indicates to en:Antena 3 (Spain), a Spanish terrestrial television channel, broadcasting the related TV-program "La gran oportunidad" which aired for the 1st time on 22.06.2009 with Luis Larrodera as presenter. Gunnex (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
ma la foto rappresenta,oltre che lui,anche il suo ideale, bisogna proprio guadagnarci sopra? o avere anche qui lo stesso spirito?
This is one of the most copyright-abused pictures of Gandhi around the world. It is cropped from Wallace Kirkland's famous picture of Gandhi taken for Life Magazine in October 1942. Kirkland an American citizen died in 1979. You can read about the copyright both at the Getty images site: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&p=Wallace+Kirkland+Gandhi&assetType=image&ep=1 and the Britannica site: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/08/people-helping-people-5-humanitarians-remember/ Clearly PD-India doesn't apply. This should really be a candidate for speedy deletion. Fowler&fowler (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, delete it. I copied the image on Wikilivres, as it is in the public domain in Canada. Yann (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot? Doubt own work Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Same for all other uploads, besides Flickr-confirmed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mboix (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation from http://tvpuls.pl/sites/default/files/puls2013_logo.png Malarz pl (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- PD-textlogo & PD-shape. Keep Fry1989 eh? 22:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is - where do "shape and text" end and "the treshold of originality" begins. In my opinion, as we don't have a simple geometric shape (rectangle, circle, oval, triangle) but more sophisticated shapes aligned together in non-symmetrical way, it is some kind of an "artistic arrangement" therefore, just to be on a safe side, I'd say Delete. Masur (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status & unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/953564 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/04/22/953564.jpg = last modified: 22.04.2009, see also file path, original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/464626/0/asenjo/valladolid/portero/) as it is credited with "Foto: Carrusan" (and not normally "Foto: 20minutos.es"). "Carrusan" is most likely "Carrusan Press" and behind this (small) agency is photographer Carmelo Rubio Sanchez.
On upload date at Commons on 16.05.2010 the CC-license of 20minutos.es was configured with (archives from 2010): "Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos publicados por 20minutos procedentes de los terceros siguientes: Textos, gráficos, informaciones e imágenes que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a Agencias, Reuters, EFE, (...)"
It is unclear if "Carrusan" (or photographer Carmelo Rubio Sanchez) ever permitted 20minutos.es to release this image under a free license. Gunnex (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution, blurred. and Wikimedia has better photos of this building. Motacilla (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is no other image from this angle, showing clearly the lynchgate Oxyman (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Temporary kept, should be gone if a better image of the same angle appears Denniss (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The is a screenshot (part of it) from Activisions PC game "Star Trek Armada" GMLSX (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Comment Someone with more experience might wish to take a look at the other image uploaded by the same user [6] which came from a picasa set. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szuzuki_Kimijosi.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/786826 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/03/28/786826.jpg = last modified: 28.03.2008, see also file path, original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/363749/0/tu/si/vales/) as it was previously published (although watermarked) via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/renovado-jurado-tu-si-que-vales/ (07.02.2008, credits: "Telecinco").
"Telecinco" indicates to en:Telecinco, a Spanish commercial television channel, which broadcasted the related TV-program es:Tú sí que vales. Gunnex (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (thumbnail, sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/132327/0/Angels/Barcelo/tiene/ = http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/465918 = http://www.20minutos.es/data/img/2006/06/19/465918.jpg = last modified: 19.06.2006, see also file path, credits: "Foto: 20minutos.es") as it was most likely provided by en:Telecinco, a Spanish commercial television channel, to promote a related TV-program hosted by presenter Àngels Barceló.
Via http://www.alertadigital.com/2010/11/12/segun-marruecos-angels-barcelo-es-un-grave-riesgo-para-el-orden-publico-y-para-la-seguridad-nacional/ (= http://www.alertadigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/barcelo.jpg), exif-info is available indicating: "Description: FOTOS INFORMATIVOS "ESPECIAL ELECCIONES EE.UU 2004"-COPYRIGHT: TELECINCO". Apparently taken in 2004, "Informativos" indicates to the TV-program es:Informativos Telecinco (broadcasted by Telecinco) - with Àngels Barceló as one of the presenters between 1997-2005, and here as anchor of a special edition of "Informativos" regarding the United States presidential election in 2004 (EE.UU stands for United States).
Additionally, the image was most likely previously published via (example) http://elpais.com/tag/angels_barcelo/a/ (see news from 2005) = .jpg (thumbnail, but most likely showing the original frame). Gunnex (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
All four of user's uploads are highly questionable. At least three of the four are very likely copyvios; low resolution and watermarked (can't read watermark on File:377060_2636731034504_1142333763_33267631_1634310312_a.jpg directly, but can be seen that it's the same as the "Bolivar Sport TV" one on File:F_C._ANGOSTURA.jpg.)
File:Fbc_melgar.jpg is less obvious, but is taken from good pitch position (a la press access), and given likely status of others probably can't be given benefit of the doubt.
File:183753 105062612907053 100002099452341 45031 4251607 n THE STRONGEST.jpg by this user was already deleted as a watermarked copyvio.
Files are:-
- File:F C. ANGOSTURA.jpg
- File:FBC MELGAR.jpg
- File:377060 2636731034504 1142333763 33267631 1634310312 a.jpg
- File:Fbc melgar.jpg
Ubcule (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Saules Akmens
[edit]Completed in 2004 according to en:List of tallest buildings in the Baltic states. Unfortunately, COM:FOP#Latvia says that we must delete them. File:Saulesakmens.JPG might possibly be de minimis.
- File:SA no ielas 25apr04.JPG
- File:Saules Akmens (p8290783).jpg
- File:Saules akmens 7sep03.JPG
- File:Saules akmens 9dec03.jpg
- File:Saules akmens.jpg
- File:Saules Akmens.jpg
- File:Saulesakmens.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Concerns with FOP FASTILY (TALK) 09:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Saules Akmens
[edit]2004 building in Riga. The architect hasn't been dead for 70 years yet.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Saules Akmens
[edit]2004 building, no FOP in Latvia.
- File:"Saules akmens" (meaning "sun stone") - panoramio.jpg
- File:2013 - panoramio (49).jpg
- File:2014 - panoramio (67).jpg
- File:Banka - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Bankas eka - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Bankas eka - panoramio.jpg
- File:Building just before the first snow. November 17, 2008 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Centrs - panoramio (11).jpg
- File:Daugava left bank in the morning if you fly in (zeppelin)(http-www.panoramio.com-photo-981834) - ainars brūvelis - Panoramio.jpg
- File:Daugava river at the sunset (8228968205).jpg
- File:Evening Riga, January 2014 (11716887855).jpg
- File:Gaisma - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hansa banka - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hansabanka - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Hansabanka - panoramio.jpg
- File:HansaBanka - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hasabanka - panoramio.jpg
- File:Latvia Riga Swedbank Tower.jpg
- File:P1210087 (3357936490).jpg
- File:Pārdaugavas debeskrāpji - panoramio.jpg
- File:Reses Nams ^ Saules Akmens - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga - Akmens tilts - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga - panoramio (33).jpg
- File:Riga - panoramio (49).jpg
- File:Riga - panoramio (61).jpg
- File:Riga - panoramio (63).jpg
- File:Riga - Saulens Akmens - Swed Bank - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga 13 (31456450112).jpg
- File:Riga 2014 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga nakti - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga night skyline - panoramio.jpg
- File:Riga Sunset - panoramio (18).jpg
- File:Riga Sunset - panoramio (21).jpg
- File:Riga Sunset - panoramio (8).jpg
- File:Riga, Latvia.jpg
- File:Rīga, Saules akmens. 2008-04-26 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Rīgas pilsētas vēsturiskais centrs, Vecrīga.JPG
- File:Saules akmena saulriets - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules Akmens (no austrumu puses) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules Akmens (no rietumu puses) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules akmens (Sun stone aka Swedbank tower) - Igors Jefimovs - Panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (10).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (11).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (12).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (13).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (14).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (15).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (18).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (19).jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (21).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (22).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (23).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (24).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (25).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (26).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (27).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (28).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (29).jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (30).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (31).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (32).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (33).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (34).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (35).jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio (6).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (6).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio (8).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis (1).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis (2).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis (3).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis (4).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis (6).jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis.jpg
- File:Saules akmens - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules Akmens - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules akmens no Ranka dambja 07.09.2003.JPG
- File:Saules akmens un preses nams - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Saules akmens un preses nams - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saules akmens un vansu tilts - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Saules akmens un vansu tilts - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saulesakmens - panoramio.jpg
- File:Saulriets - panoramio (77).jpg
- File:Saulriets - panoramio (78).jpg
- File:Silnice u Vanšu tilts.jpg
- File:Sky - panoramio - Dmitrijs Purgalvis.jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (171).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (175).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (176).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (178).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (180).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (184).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (185).jpg
- File:Sunset - panoramio (38).jpg
- File:Swedbank CE, Balasta dambis 1a, Riga - panoramio.jpg
- File:Swedbank Riga.IMG 1219.JPG
- File:Swedbank, Balasta dambis 1a, Rīga, Latvia - panoramio.jpg
- File:Swedbank.jpg
- File:Vanšu tilts un Saules akmens.jpg
- File:Āgenskalns, Zemgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (19).jpg
- File:Āgenskalns, Zemgale Suburb, Riga, Latvia - panoramio (8).jpg
- File:Ķīpsala, Kurzemes rajons, Rīga, Latvia - panoramio (9).jpg
- File:Здание «Солнечный камень». Штаб - квартира Swedbank. - panoramio.jpg
- File:Прогулки по ночной Риге 7 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Рига (Латвия) Большие деньги (офис SWEDBANKA) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Рига (Латвия) Высотка SWEDBANKA в пасмурную погоду - panoramio.jpg
- File:Рыжскія замалёўкі 34.jpg
- File:Рыжскія замалёўкі 36.jpg
_-_panoramio.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}
(http-www.panoramio.com-photo-981834)_-_ainars_br%C5%ABvelis_-_Panoramio.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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Igors_Jefimovs_-_Panoramio.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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B8_(%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%81_SWEDBANKA)_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_SWEDBANKA_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
kyykaarme (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't nominate all the images in the category. I tried to make an assessment for De minimis, so it's possible that I nominated too many or too few images. -kyykaarme (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at most of the others, but I'd say Daugava left bank in the morning if you fly in (zeppelin)(http-www.panoramio.com-photo-981834) - ainars brūvelis - Panoramio.jpg (crop out the building if you must) and Daugava river at the sunset (8228968205).jpg would pass as de minimis. Do we have any guidance on where to draw the line? --LPfi (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The image uses the PD-India tag and it is sourced to Kansas Educational Television, whose website credits the image's copyright to BETTMAN/Corbis. See:http://www.ket.org/pressroom/2002/13/COHE__.html That means it wasn't published first in India. Even if it was, it was taken on 8 August 1942, which means it was not in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996. So PD-India-URAA doesn't apply. Fowler&fowler (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- If India is taken as the country of origin, then the most specific templates seem to be Template:PD-India-photo-1958 and Template:PD-1996. The broader Template:PD-India works too, also with PD-1996. The years being 1942 + 50 = 1992 < 1996. If the wording of Template:PD-India-URAA is not accurate enough or not complete enough to cover some cases, it just should not be used for those cases. However, it seems that this file of Commons corresponds to this photo on the Corbis website, but that its description page on Commons has the caption of this other photo of the Corbis site. For what it's worth, Corbis dates the first photo from January 1st, 1946 and the second photo from 1942. A January 1st, 1946 photograph from India would probably miss by one day the condition for PD-1996. The datation of this photo to 1946 by Corbis may be correct or not. If you are familiar with the history of India, perhaps you can sort that out. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are two issues here: (i) it seems the copyright is held by BETTMAN/Corbis, which means it was not published first in India. That in turn means, none of the PD-India tags apply. Secondly, even if the picture was taken in India by an Indian photographer and published in an Indian magazine the very next day, i.e. 9 August 1942 (the day after the "Quit India Resolution" at which this picture was taken), it is still copyrighted in the US (ie. the PD-India-URAA tag does not apply). That is because the picture was not in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996 (which requires the image to have been published in India before 1 January 1941). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#PD-India_.26_PD-India-URAA Regards, Fowler&fowler (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, if the wording of the template PD-India-URAA is incomplete, because it does not cover explicitely or adequately all the cases of Indian works that are actually free under the URAA, then that incomplete template should not be used in the cases that it does not cover adequately. For example, for photos from before 1946, the specific template PD-India-photo-1958 is preferable, in association with the template PD-1996. Please see the templates linked above PD-India-photo-1958 and PD-India. For a synthetic view of the different possible cases, please see the table at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. If you have time, you may also find interesting this newspaper comment written by a former judge in India, about why the copyright of pre-1958 works expired according to the 1911 Act. For photographs created before 1958, that means what the above-mentioned Commons pages explain, that the copyright was 50 years after creation. Which means that photographs created before 1946 meet the URAA requirement. Regarding the other issue, you seem certain that this photograph was created at the time of the "Quit India Resolution" in 1942. I take your word for it. Note that by stating that you are saying that some of the information about this photograph from Corbis is wrong, at least about the date. This should make us cautious about the rest of their informations. A more detailed explanation would be useful to support the reasoning that just because Bettman/Corbis claims copyright on an image of which they don't document the photographer and of which you say they have the wrong date, that should automatically mean absolute proof that the image was not published in India first. (Or, in the absence of clear documentation about the place of first publication, why India would not be considered the country of origin as the country having the most obvious connection with the photograph.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I was fooled by the title of the picture. You are right about 1946. I checked the Library of Congress and it turns out it was taken by Dave Davis of the ACME wire photo division of the New York World Telegram and Sun, which was later absorbed by UPI, in turn bought by Betteman, and finally bought by Corbis. Here is the LOC info: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94505194/ It is still under US copyright. In any case, no PD-India tag will apply. Fowler&fowler (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good research! So, "Acme Newspictures, Inc. staff photo by Dave Davis". That displaces the problem. About the Acme photos, the Libray of Congress says: "Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." [7]. Given the fact that the research by the LoC specialists found that the copyrights of the copyright-registered Acme photos in the collection were not renewed, it is possible that the copyrights of the unregistered Acme photos, or of some of them, were not renewed either (assuming they were published with a copyright notice in the first place). So the questions are: 1) was this photo published with proper copyright notice in the United States and if so 2) was the copyright properly renewed in time. If someone knows how and is motivated to search the renewal records. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum: From a quick search on Commons, it seems that Commons currently hosts about two dozen photos credited to Acme. Some of those photos are tagged with PD-US-not renewed, with a user stating that a research was performed to verify that status. If we assume that research actually confirmed that no renewal was found about those photos, then that tag seems fair enough for those photos. Some other Acme photos on Commons are tagged with PD-US-not renewed, but without any statement that a rechearch was performed to verify that status. That leaves some doubt about those. Are there any renewals for Acme photos documented anywhere? Some other Acme photos on Commons are tagged, probably incorrectly, with the template PD-NYWT&S. (Digression: Many files seem to have been tagged with PD-NYWT&S by the bot Dudubot around July 3 and July 4, 2009. Some are tagged correctly, when they were staff photos, but some are probably tagged incorrectly, when they were not staff photos but photos from external agencies. A major cleanup of those photos tagged by that bot might be necessary.) There's also apparently an Acme photo tagged with the German Bundesarchiv license, for what it's worth. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good research! So, "Acme Newspictures, Inc. staff photo by Dave Davis". That displaces the problem. About the Acme photos, the Libray of Congress says: "Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." [7]. Given the fact that the research by the LoC specialists found that the copyrights of the copyright-registered Acme photos in the collection were not renewed, it is possible that the copyrights of the unregistered Acme photos, or of some of them, were not renewed either (assuming they were published with a copyright notice in the first place). So the questions are: 1) was this photo published with proper copyright notice in the United States and if so 2) was the copyright properly renewed in time. If someone knows how and is motivated to search the renewal records. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I was fooled by the title of the picture. You are right about 1946. I checked the Library of Congress and it turns out it was taken by Dave Davis of the ACME wire photo division of the New York World Telegram and Sun, which was later absorbed by UPI, in turn bought by Betteman, and finally bought by Corbis. Here is the LOC info: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94505194/ It is still under US copyright. In any case, no PD-India tag will apply. Fowler&fowler (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, if the wording of the template PD-India-URAA is incomplete, because it does not cover explicitely or adequately all the cases of Indian works that are actually free under the URAA, then that incomplete template should not be used in the cases that it does not cover adequately. For example, for photos from before 1946, the specific template PD-India-photo-1958 is preferable, in association with the template PD-1996. Please see the templates linked above PD-India-photo-1958 and PD-India. For a synthetic view of the different possible cases, please see the table at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. If you have time, you may also find interesting this newspaper comment written by a former judge in India, about why the copyright of pre-1958 works expired according to the 1911 Act. For photographs created before 1958, that means what the above-mentioned Commons pages explain, that the copyright was 50 years after creation. Which means that photographs created before 1946 meet the URAA requirement. Regarding the other issue, you seem certain that this photograph was created at the time of the "Quit India Resolution" in 1942. I take your word for it. Note that by stating that you are saying that some of the information about this photograph from Corbis is wrong, at least about the date. This should make us cautious about the rest of their informations. A more detailed explanation would be useful to support the reasoning that just because Bettman/Corbis claims copyright on an image of which they don't document the photographer and of which you say they have the wrong date, that should automatically mean absolute proof that the image was not published in India first. (Or, in the absence of clear documentation about the place of first publication, why India would not be considered the country of origin as the country having the most obvious connection with the photograph.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are two issues here: (i) it seems the copyright is held by BETTMAN/Corbis, which means it was not published first in India. That in turn means, none of the PD-India tags apply. Secondly, even if the picture was taken in India by an Indian photographer and published in an Indian magazine the very next day, i.e. 9 August 1942 (the day after the "Quit India Resolution" at which this picture was taken), it is still copyrighted in the US (ie. the PD-India-URAA tag does not apply). That is because the picture was not in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996 (which requires the image to have been published in India before 1 January 1941). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stefan2#PD-India_.26_PD-India-URAA Regards, Fowler&fowler (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was taken in August 1942, during the All-India Congress Committee meeting in Wardha, not in 1946. Yann (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- But why? Is there a source to that effect? The documentation of the Library of Congress says 1946. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Even the LoC is not always right. See e.g. [8] where the date given is 1943, but it was taken in 1905 in South-Africa (File:Gandhi Johannesburg 1905.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- But why? Is there a source to that effect? The documentation of the Library of Congress says 1946. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: ACME -- no notice and no renewal seems to be pretty clear . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all images in the India Office collection are created by the UK Government. See for examples hundreds of old pictures of India by Samuel Bourne all of which were published by his private studio in Calcutta and Simla. Secondly, it is not clear who holds the copyright. The same picture is available for purchase on the Times of India (see:http://www.timescontent.com/tss/showcase/preview-buy/27736/News/Mohammed-Ali-Jinnah-Pandit-Jawaharl.html ) and is copyrighted to BCCL (the Bennet Coleman Company Limited, the publishers of the Times of India, a company established in 1892, although the paper was founded in 1838) Fowler&fowler (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It would be out of copyright anyway before 1996, no?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, for PD-India-URAA to apply (ie. for its copyright to have expired before 1996) it would need to have been published before 1941. The picture was taken in 1946. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- PS It can still be uploaded to Wikipedia (with fair use historic image tag), but it seems (and I could be mistaken and would defer to Stefan4), it can't be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I found the same picture in Metcalf&Metcalf and they credit BL. So the copyright is not held by anyone else. See A Concise History of Modern India[9], Cambridge University Press, 24 September 2012, ISBN 978-1-107-02649-0, page xi: “7.1 Jawaharlal Nehru (left) and M. A. Jinnah (right) at the Simla Conference 1945. By permission of the British Library 134/2 [28].” Also, the picture on page 211 in M&M is much sharper than our low-res version, (see: A Concise History of Modern India[10], Cambridge University Press, 24 September 2012, ISBN 978-1-107-02649-0, page 211). So if you don't mind, I'll replace the old one with the new, and then remove the deletion tag. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- PS It can still be uploaded to Wikipedia (with fair use historic image tag), but it seems (and I could be mistaken and would defer to Stefan4), it can't be on Commons. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, for PD-India-URAA to apply (ie. for its copyright to have expired before 1996) it would need to have been published before 1941. The picture was taken in 1946. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:LaFére inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Image from a website containing the statement "El contenido está disponible bajo los términos de la Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported." It is unclear whether "el contenido" only includes the text or whether it also includes the images. The uploader is called "Maintenance script" which sounds like the name of a user who has copied images from elsewhere for maintenance reasons. It seems that we at least are missing the name of the author, which means that we can't satisfy the attribution requirement in CC-BY-SA. Stefan4 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I dont think its unclear, almost every web that I've seen with a proper license applies it to all its content, and does not specify if its the text, the graphics, the photos, etc...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Compare for example with Commons. Text on is available under some licences whereas images may be available under other licences. In either case, "Maintenance script" is probably not the name of the author, so we are violating the attribution requirement. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Come on, you really think that its a good example to compare Commons with that page? Furthermore, as you put the example of Commons, here it differenciates clearly between the text and the rest of the content. So, if Wikiburgos states that the content of the page in under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, without making any other distinction, logically it refers to all the content of the page, if not they would have give more explanations about what parts are licensed and what part are not. Finally, how could you know that "Maintenance script" is not the author of the photos? Only because the nickname look suspicious to you? If you could find the photos in other webpages uploaded in a date earlier than the dates that they were uploaded on Wikiburgos, its OK, but if not, you dont have proofs about your allegations. We need facts, not probabilities.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Compare for example with Commons. Text on is available under some licences whereas images may be available under other licences. In either case, "Maintenance script" is probably not the name of the author, so we are violating the attribution requirement. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I agree that the name is odd, but it appears to have a user page, etc. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
