Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
This file was initially tagged by DMacks as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|File:Agomelatine.svg Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The rendition of the SVG is not the same as the rendition of File:Agomelatine.svg. There is a difference in the carbon skeleton. Pleclown (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: After consultation of a chemist (Rhadamante), the files picture the same thing. Pleclown (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Source of the pictures unknown Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation JuTa 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't belive that the Flickr account is allowed to give such screenshots free Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No, it's not Denniss (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation from i.e. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/i601400-9/mtv-video-music-awards-2013-red-carpet-jaden-smith-and-willow-smith.html JuTa 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This photograph was taken without the consent of the photographed, Mr. G.C. Waldrep. As a practitioner of the Amish faith, Mr. Waldrep does not consent to any photographs of himself being taken or published. He has requested that this and other images of himself uploaded by user Slowking4 be completely removed from Wikimedia's servers and the original files destroyed. You may contact him directly at gc.waldrep@bucknell.edu to verify these claims and with further questions on this matter. Q01-K93 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I saw this at OTRS2013101310010761 - The subject was not sure how to contact the uploader - I have since passed his e-mail on (with his permission) to the uploader requesting deletion. It was taken in the US (confirmed by subject), so there is no major reason under Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people to delete. Subject says he always asks for no photographs at his poetry readings - therefore I would be inclined to apply Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues as it's somewhat "unfairly obtained" and delete it. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- i always delete photos upon request. this could be speedied. i don't recall a no photos request; since i was 10 feet away, perhaps it was politeness on his part. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Dschwen. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nudity inappropriate for commons? Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation these are photographs taken by Mikel Marton and would require evidence of his free release. Gbawden, before raising any more nudity related requests, please take some time to read Nudity. Male nudity in a photograph is not a reason to delete from Commons of itself, consideration should be given to educational value in terms of artistic, cultural, historic or sex educational value. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially agree with comment by Fæ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nudity inappropriate for commons? Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation these are photographs taken by Mikel Marton and would require evidence of his free release. Gbawden, before raising any more nudity related requests, please take some time to read Nudity. Male nudity in a photograph is not a reason to delete from Commons of itself, consideration should be given to educational value in terms of cultural, historic or sex educational value. --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially agree with Fæ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nudity inappropriate for commons? Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation these are photographs taken by Mikel Marton and would require evidence of his free release. Gbawden, before raising any more nudity related requests, please take some time to read Nudity. Male nudity in a photograph is not a reason to delete from Commons of itself, consideration should be given to educational value in terms of artistic, cultural, historic or sex educational value. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially agree with Fæ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nudity inappropriate for commons? Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation these are photographs taken by Mikel Marton and would require evidence of his free release. Gbawden, before raising any more nudity related requests, please take some time to read Nudity. Male nudity in a photograph is not a reason to delete from Commons of itself, consideration should be given to educational value in terms of artistic, cultural, historic or sex educational value. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially agree with analysis by Fæ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work given the logo, Nudity inappropriate for Commons Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, possible copyvio here, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not really unique or high quality here, -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Amada44. Taivo (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Two source files of this Collage is missing. JKadavoor Jee 11:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment — I've identified the sources for the two missing headshots of women:
- The first is a photo of Wangari Maathai by Martin Rowe. It is distributed in the press kit for the film, Taking Root. It used to be on Commons, but was deleted in 2011. We have some free photos of her in Category:Wangari Maathai.
- The second is an AFP photo of Aung San Suu Kyi. I haven't been able to discover if it used to be on commons. We have some free photos of her in Category:Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.
- This collage is widely used by the other WIkimedia projects, so it would great if we could preserve it by replacing the two non-free photos in the collage. Assuming we want to replace the non-free photos with free photos of the same women, I'd suggest square headshot crops from File:Wangari_Maathai_in_Nairobi.jpg and File:Aung_San_Suu_Kyi_(December_2011).jpg would make suitable replacements. —RP88 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've posted a request over at Graphic Lab asking the workshop to replace the two non-free photos in the collage. —RP88 10:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep I replaced Aung San Suu Kyi's photo with File:Aung San Suu Kyi (December 2011).jpg and Wangari Maathai's photo with File:Wangari Maathai in Nairobi.jpg. I also replaced Mata Hari's photo with one of Josephine Baker so the collage is more racially diverse. I think the deletion nomination should be closed now.--Bleff (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry; I'm still seeing the old pictures. Is it just a bug? JKadavoor Jee 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me. Try clearing your browser cache. —RP88 03:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry; I'm still seeing the old pictures. Is it just a bug? JKadavoor Jee 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The old version has been deleted. Now the file is in a license compatible with Commons Sreejith K (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
blurred, we have File:Bhutan (8026009204).jpg, File:വറ്റൽമുളക്.jpg, File:Starr 080608-7445 Capsicum annuum.jpg among others, very close to this drying stage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
way too blurry to have aesthetic value. Category:Horizon Field, Hasenfluh has clearer images Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, one of the blurriest images, that I have seen in Commons. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
blurred, we have File:Bhutan (8026009204).jpg, File:വറ്റൽമുളക്.jpg, File:Starr 080608-7445 Capsicum annuum.jpg among others, very close to this drying stage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate for commons Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality. We have better images. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, this is an example of extremely bad quality. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a magazine. Likely copyvio. The uploader removed the copyright tag. Stefan4 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shreyansh K Jain. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a printed publication. Likely copyvio. Lots of text on the file information page. Commons is not Wikipedia. Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently also nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shreyansh K Jain. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear which free license, if any, the copyright holder released this image in DHN (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, licence permits use only in some wikipedia pages. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
inappropriate license, unclear if author released this image freely at all DHN (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, licence permits use only in some wikipedia pages. Taivo (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
inappropriate license, unclear if author released this image freely at all DHN (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, licence permits use only in some wikipedia pages. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
inappropriate license, restrictions made this image obviously non-free DHN (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, licence permits use only in some wikipedia pages. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Non free logo, "de minimis" doesn't apply like in File:Misfits stage.jpg UAwiki (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Romania: the statue was erected in 1994 to 2004.[1] Eleassar (t/p) 07:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
A photograph of a 3D work from an academic journal. The license seems to be incorrect, as it only mentions "encyclopedias, dictionaries and textbooks". No evidence that the photograph would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 07:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. You are right : I should have used {{PD-RO-photo}} instead of {{PD-RO-1956}}. Though the basis for PD is the same article 7 of the decree of June 1956, the rationale for PD is not "encyclopedias, dictionaries and textbooks" but "non-artistic photograph". Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a link to the archive page and corrected the template. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 08:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for having clarified this.
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 09:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for having clarified this.
Kept, Taivo (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Depiction, identification and somewhat ambiguous description of a likely non-notable minor. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Depiction, identification and somewhat ambiguous description of a likely non-notable minor. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: evidently not covered by Template:PD-RO-exempt. Eleassar (t/p) 07:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Added missing information. This is an 1650 engraving of the Trajan's Column by Pietro Santi Bartoli.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to be fully o.k. now. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep pd old Trajan's Column by Pietro Santi Bartoli category should be addedCristianChirita (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, this image is ok now as the missing information has been provided. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, fixed. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Romania: unknown copyright status, described as 'modern'.[2] Eleassar (t/p) 08:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Work by Radu Manzat-Moga (d. 1950).[3] --Eleassar (t/p) 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. JuTa 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Two source files (File:Mr. Kofi Annan.jpg, File:Man and son.jpg) of this Collage is missing. JKadavoor Jee 11:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This collage is widely used by other WIkimedia projects, so it would great if we could preserve it by replacing the two non-free photos in the collage. Some of the uses of this image identify the individuals in the collage in a caption, so ideally we want to replace the non-free photos with free photos of the same men. I'd suggest square headshot crops from File:Kofi_Annan.jpg and File:Man and child (Fylkesarkivet i Sogn og Fjordane).jpg would make suitable replacements. I've posted a request over at Graphic Lab asking the workshop to replace the two non-free photos in the collage. —RP88 10:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Fulvio 314 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Since Fulvio314 has been kind enough to replace the two problematic headshots, this file should now be fine. —RP88 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep now; thanks. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: McZusatz (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, this bottle is copyrighted artwork and designer's permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the painter died before 1 January 1946. Eleassar (t/p) 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep While Ion Popescu-Băjenaru died in 1955 [4], the book is described in some sources as an encyclopedia or a corpus of works by Vasile Alecsandri, Gheorghe Adamescu, Victor Eftimiu, Petre Dulfu, George Coşbuc, C.D. Aricescu, Gheorghe Tăutu, Ion Creangă, G.A. Dima, Anton Pann, Andrei Mureşianu and Ioan Găvănescu and even "a Google of the 20s [...] where one could find anything they were looking for" (ibidem). It should therefore be tagged as {{PD-RO-1956}}.
Thanks for the proposal, it was very challenging to search for the year of death for Ion Popescu-Băjenaru :)--Strainu (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep considering Strainu's argument. Thanks Strainu for investigation! Looking over that intersting link Strainu I noticed the publisher Institutul de Arte Grafice Carol Göbl, 1914.
I guess the painter was an employee of "Institutul de Arte Grafice Carol Göbl" ("Carol Göbl Institute of Graphic Arts") and the art-work was created before 1914.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnian (talk • contribs)
- Agreed. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I tagged the image, I think the discussion can be closed.--Strainu (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, fixed. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what this is. Doubt its in scope Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot, not used and fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope in Commons, try wikinews. Taivo (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons IMO - looks like a vanity photo touched up Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Even if the uploader is the person in the photo, it's unlikely to be a self-portrait. It is in use on the topic page and also the uploader's userpager. The uploader has the same name as the person in the photo and the autobiography on the user page would imply this is the person in the photo who is also using wikiProjects. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, used in en.wiki in article and user page, so in scope. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope as unreadable text. Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP#Germany doesn't apply indoors. Also, it is very hard to read the text. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, this photo is unrepearably blurry. Taivo (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Tekstman (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo. Taivo (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
iPhone is copyrighted DominikKorthaus (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Tekstman (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Tekstman (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted, unused small personal photo. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I realize, after uploading, that I give others right to remix this image, which I don't want to happen. Please remove it. Sscspace (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
no longer be used Fadzreeq (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, exact copy of File:Official School Flag.png. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Obvious Derivative work Stromare (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Used solely for vandalism on en.wp by sock of another vandal-only blocked account DMacks (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like it was intended as a racist slur. Delete soon, please. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo. Taivo (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/461860/0/ministros/entrantes/gobierno/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/04/07/949129.jpg = last modified: 07.04.2009, see also file path, no credits given) as it was posterior published by 20minutos.es via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/502799/0/gripe-a/calendario/escolar/ (23.08.2009) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/04/07/949093.jpg = last modified: 07.04.2009 (same time as above), given credits to "JORGE PARIS".
The file was uploaded at Commons on 15.09.2009. Before and after this time the CC-license of 20minutos.es was configured with (see e.g. archives from 2009): "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." Gunnex (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, so many problems!
- Delete My mistake uploading the picture. Agree with the deletion. Thanks, --Lucien (es·m·com) 19:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not free PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
File:AussieTeaser lets the world see her naked body- She loves opening her legs so that guys can see her nice smooth vagina- She has photo's all over the net so just search her name and check her out- 2013-09-20 19-41.jpg
[edit]Potential copyvio, see [5][6] (both slightly lower resolution). Blurry, low quality, out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This user has been warned before about her uploads. COM:PORN
- Delete Image is of an intimate nature and not from an obviously public place, the subject is identifiable and there is no evidence of consent to publication. The full size image seems to be broken. We have plenty of good quality images of this subject matter already. And the image title does not inspire confidence. --Simonxag (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, pornography with low quality. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The statement "www.ramnathphoto.com ALL IMAGES are COPYRIGHTED by Ramnath Bhat and ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED Please don't use this image on websites, blogs or other media without my explicit permission." clearly contradicts the stated licensing terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work Bramfab (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
redirection sans page liée François GOGLINS (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Christian de Pasquale nato a Napoli, 5 Gennaio 1996--Figlio di Federico e Teresa- Per i primi 10 anni della sua vita ha vissuto nella città natale del padre Federico fino a quando non ebbero la decisione di t 2013-10-14 01-33.jpg
[edit]Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Poorer image-format and lower-res/smaller than other available raster (file:Diamantane.png); both that PNG and also available SVG (file:Congressane.svg) have better 3D hinting (overall 3D form is one of the key details of this structure) DMacks (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a photograph of the last set of official photographs of the band, now held in Royal Artillery Band at Woolwich, London. There is no evidence that the underlying copyright for the photographs in the picture have been released by the copyright holder(s). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work Bramfab (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio (http://www.dramabeans.com/2010/03/lee-beom-soo-takes-the-lead-in-sbss-giant/) DHN (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. The image on commons is identical to the one in the link provided by nominatory. Comment The preceeding images also labeled "copyvio" I was unable to verify because there were no links provided. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
appears to be taken from Google Earth DHN (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator, it's a screenshot. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work (installation) Bramfab (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete: I found the source but no author or copyright status is indicated and there is no proof that image is PD. Ww2censor (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, unclear copyright status. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://estaticos.20minutos.es/edicionimpresa/valencia/12/10/VALE_11_10_12.pdf (.pdf-version of edition from 11.10.2012, page 2, no credits) as it was previously published by several media via (examples):
- http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/05/15/alicante/1337101531.html (15.05.2012, credits: "EFE") = http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2012/05/15/alicante/1337101531_0.jpg
- http://www.lasprovincias.es/20120401/comunitatvalenciana/comunitat/limpieza-graffitis-coste-201204011039.html (01.04.2012) = http://www.lasprovincias.es/noticias/201204/01/Media/grafitti--647x231.jpg
The credit "EFE" indicates to en:EFE, a Spanish international news agency. Gunnex (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. This whole 20 minutes thing is a mess. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio of EFE, not free PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No author or publication date is given. As an image created, at the earliest, in in 1914, it could well still be in copyright in the UK under the life + 70 rule Hchc2009 (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work Bramfab (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work Bramfab (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: advertisement. Also, advertisements like this are usually copyright violations. Stefan4 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems to be out of scope, as I can't see how the file could be used for educational purposes. This supports the idea that the page is being used for advertisement.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 04:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose, looks like COM:ADVERT.Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Rowing pictogram.svg Ricordisamoa 09:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The new svg, replaces the old png exactly. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
copyviol of artist work Bramfab (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Private memories 91.66.153.214 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, COM:NOTSOCIAL, photo fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Von Pettis a-k-a forever young has been dominating the rap -hip hop scene since the age of 15- Working with his cousin Triston Pettis a-k-a showtime & Impirio they formed the elite group crew reckas- Soon he d 2013-10-11 16-50.jpg
[edit]Appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable singer or something. Stefan4 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:ADVERT & COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image (maybe better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Butko. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Image of the same object is here, in which the object is better centered. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Butko. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user photo, I suspect. Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The design is copyrightable, hence this seems to be a copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence this is on public domain or free licensed UAwiki (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the photo is not 50 years old. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused, unknown purpose. ko:김태성 doesn't exist, so the composer in the file name is probably non-notable. Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:SCOPE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 2013-10-18T18:45:32 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Arena
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Romania: modern architecture.
- File:Arena Nationala.JPG
- File:ArenaNationala (2).JPG
- File:ArenaNationala.JPG
- File:RO B National Arena outside night.jpg
- File:Stadionul National - National Arena 2.jpg
- File:Stadionul National - National Arena 4.jpg
- File:Stadionul National - National Arena.jpg
- File:Stadionul National 2011.JPG
- File:StadionulNational.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 09:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, stadion from 2008–11, so copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy: non-free modern architecture.
- File:Medicina aragosta.jpg
- File:Medicina-Ancona.jpg
- File:UnivPM - engineering (1).jpg
- File:UnivPM - engineering (2).jpg
- File:UnivPM - engineering (b).jpg
- File:UnivPM-ingegneria nuovo.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Male uk222
[edit]Exhibitionist number million and one Male uk222 has uploaded these photos:
- File:Dcsf0099.jpg
- File:Flaccid.JPG
- File:Mirror penis.JPG
- File:Penis leaking pre-ejaculate.jpg
- File:Perineum-view.JPG
- File:Semen on thighs.png
- File:Stiff penis.JPG
They are all unused photos about self-pornography with bad quality. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Question Do all of them show the same person? You are usually only able to take penis shots of yourself, not of other people. If someone uploads penis shots of multiple people, it could suggest that the images are copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like they are all of the same person. --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here, -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete COM:OMGAPENIS "If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose." Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:PENIS PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chakupewa nkwabi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:KAWE BEACH.jpg
- File:KAWE.jpg
- File:CHAKU RELAXING.jpg
- File:CHAKU BEACH.jpg
- File:PHOTOS DE MIOS.jpg
- File:KANSIGO CHAKUPEWA NKWABI 2013-09-25 20-04.jpg
- File:M 2013-09-25 19-46.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- DELETED Taivo (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)}}
Files uploaded by Chakupewa nkwabi (talk · contribs)
[edit]not within scope
- File:Chakupewa 1.pdf
- File:MTIHANI WA KISWAHILI KIDATO CHA KWANZA 2013.pdf
- File:Organisation Structure T C U.pdf
Rosario Berganza 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
deleted: out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MatadordeSM (talk · contribs)
[edit]Strongly doubt own work claim. 10 uploads own work already identified as (c) vio. Com:PCP
- File:Gabriel Peñalba.jpg
- File:Norberto Paparatto.jpg
- File:Patito Galmarini.jpg
- File:Gabriel Peñalba vs Palmeiras.jpg
- File:Mariano Echeverría 2.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
1969 photo - not in public domain. AWM only allows non-commercial use. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
(WP is SO slow at the moment that it's hard to keep track of which edits have actually been saved. My apologies if there's a "synchronisation" problem.)
Please note that the Australian War Memorial themselves have stated that they have released photos into the public domain. This matter has been debated many times in many places by many minds who know MUCH more about copyright issues than I do, and than I ever want to.
If there is a problem with whatever the currently claimed license is, I have little doubt that the photograph would qualify as fair use of a historical event. After all, he is the LAST Australian recipient of the Imperial Victoria Cross, and also the ONLY living Australian of the Imperial Victoria Cross.
I am not, and don't pretend to be, a copyright expert, but the level of knowledge I have suggests to me that there isn't a problem. If there is a problem, I would VERY MUCH appreciate you bringing this to my attention so I can bring it to the attention of an "expert" who can address those issues.
Many thanks for posting on my talk page - most appreciated! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This is http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/LES/69/0593/VN/ where it says "Image copyright: © Australian War Memorial. This image is licensed under CC BY-NC". I have seen other photos where the war memorial is claiming that the photo is in the public domain. Has the war memorial released some images to the public domain while keeping other images copyrighted? The age requirements in {{PD-Australia}} are not met for this photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The AWM has a huge number of photographs, it is inevitable that there will be a few errors in copyright statements. I think what matters here is the date - 1969. Unambiguously still under copyright. But I think it might be OK to upload it to EN Wiki under US "Fair Trading" justification. ? Rcbutcher (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio DHN (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if this is really own work, re-upload the photo with full resolution. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio DHN (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if this is really own work, re-upload the photo with full resolution. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio DHN (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if this is really own work, re-upload the photo with full resolution. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
blatant copyvio DHN (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if this is really own work, re-upload the photo with full resolution. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can't find anywhere on the site where the creative commons license is granted by the artist. Based on the talk page of the uploader, I don't think I trust the license. Either way (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This image was an overwrite of another image at w:File:Leoyankevich.jpg, where the editor who overwrote the original image did not provide a source. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, unknown author and permission. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of permission (was deleted from en.wp after no response regarding licensing status, where same uploader claimed it was non-free) DMacks (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographed sculptures are in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep The image came from Flicker with the proper license needed for Commons. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Photo is categorised as "Romania" on Flickr. Per COM:FOP#Romania, you can't take photos of sculptures unless the sculptor has been dead for at least 70 years. The death year of the sculptor is unknown. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation: the photographer had no right to publish the photo under Commons-compatible licence. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
удаляй картинку её заподозрили :) Станислав81 08:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, author's request, small unused drawing. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 08:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
At w:File:Carl G. Jones.jpg, it says "Took the picture from company database" which suggests that it isn't own work. Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
ggtgjhjhhjjhhiktktkfgkfkgkgkkghykgjyjhgbkhnhnhhkhkhhmymyhhmymhhhnymymhymhkhkhkhnkhhhghk 88.159.134.222 15:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to understand the reason for deletion request. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, this is not a good reason to delete. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously false authorship and licensing claims. Possibly ineligible for copyright protection, but it's a bit of a borderline case. If it is to be kept, the file description needs to be corrected. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear subject, unclear image, no description, one of those blurry tourist shots, unusable, COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bronze statues in Romania
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Romania: copyrighted statues, created less than 70 years ago.
- File:Decebal.jpg
- File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu.jpg
- File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu1.jpg
* File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu2.jpg
- File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul.jpg
- File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul1.jpg
- File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul2.jpg
- File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 1.jpg
- File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 2.jpg
- File:Parcul Areni2.jpg
- File:Statuia Aruncătorul de ciocan.jpg
- File:Statuia Aruncătorul de ciocan1.jpg
- File:Statuia Avant din Suceava2.jpg
- File:Statuia Avânt.jpg
- File:Statuia Avânt1.jpg
- File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava.jpg
- File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava1.jpg
- File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava2.jpg
- File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava3.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 07:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the following:
- File:Decebal.jpg – 1978, Ion Jalea
- File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu.jpg and File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu1.jpg – 1978, Ginete Sántha
- File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul.jpg, File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul1.jpg and File:Grupul statuar Mama şi şcolarul2.jpg – 1977, Ion Jalea
- File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 1.jpg and File:I. Apafi Mihály szobra Nagyernyében 2.jpg – József Miholcsa
- File:Statuia Aruncătorul de ciocan.jpg and File:Statuia Aruncătorul de ciocan1.jpg – 1977, Ion Jalea
- File:Statuia Avânt.jpg, File:Statuia Avânt1.jpg and File:Statuia Avant din Suceava2.jpg – 1967, Ernest Kaznovsky and Elena Marinescu-Kaznovsky
- File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava.jpg, File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava1.jpg, File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava2.jpg and File:Statuia Pompierul din Suceava3.jpg – 2010, Narcis Tabarcea
- but Keep the following:
- File:Parcul Areni2.jpg, because the main subject is the park; the usage of the statue is de minimis
- File:Grupul statuar Familia Brâncoveanu2.jpg, there is no statue in this picture
- Razvan Socol (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Agree for the second one, disagree for the first one: the image description makes it clear that the object of interest was the statue. --1Eleassar (t/p)
- What does the description has to do with De minimis? That picture is the definition of the third criteria: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable."--Strainu (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is rather very unlikely de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." The statue has not been included in the image incidentally and could not be at will replaced with another work. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Agree for the second one, disagree for the first one: the image description makes it clear that the object of interest was the statue. --1Eleassar (t/p)
Deleted, but two kept. Borderline case, but it seems to me, that Parcul Areni2 is de minimis. The main object is park here. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In May 2012 a file from the same source was deleted since the terms of the website states that "[t]his clipart should be used for non-commercial projects only". The question is: How much should we put into "should", and should we follow the precedent set by the previous deletion request?
Personally I think that COM:PCP would apply on the "should"-part and that the previous request should also weigh in, so they should all be deleted (note that the grey present is not sourced from the website, but a derivative from a file sourced from that website).
heb [T C E] 05:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete File:Blue and Red Present.gif is licensed as PD-self but its real author is not Christmas-graphics-plus.com according to the description of the source, "These images have been collected from various newsgroups and public domain sources, and all are believed to be free of copyright." --miya (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angrylambie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Blanket DR, dubios own work claims.
- File:Mitch Easter, Michael Quercio, Scott Miller 1986.jpg source could be [7] where Robert could be Robert Toren
- File:Game Theory 1986.jpg source could be [8] where Robert could be Robert Toren
- File:Scott Miller of Game Theory, Loud Family.jpg
- File:Iggy Pop live 1980.jpg same as File:Iggy pop davis b&w 1.jpg
- File:Frida Kahlo Fake photoshopped image with gun.jpg Derivative work, no source given
- File:Scott miller game theory live SF 1986.jpg
- File:Hornet nest.jpg
- File:Sandstone california coast.jpg
- File:Salt point landscape.JPG
- File:Woman urinating.JPG
- File:Nude on rainy day.jpg
- File:Asian vulva 2.jpg
- File:Moderm primitive in nature 2.JPG
- File:Woman on phone.jpg
- File:Skinny dipping.jpg
- File:Asian vulva.jpg
- File:Sun worshipper.JPG
- File:Nude with cat.jpg
- File:Narcissist.jpg
- File:Modern primitive in nature.JPG
- File:Fine art nude.jpg
- File:Polaroid figure study.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader could be the author of at least some of the images. File:Iggy pop davis b&w 1.jpg states: Negative lost, this is scanned and cleaned up from proof sheet by the photographer, Robert Toren aka angrylambie. There's still the possibility that Robert Toren didn't authorize the uploads and angrylambie is not Robert Toren. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
These are all my images - please do not delete them - Robert Toren aka angrylambie -- 17:04, 14 October 2013 User:Angrylambie
- Most of these are claimed to be from before the mainstream digital camera era, and I don't really see anything to contradict this, so I'm not sure exactly what the claimed problems are. If User:Angrylambie is Robert Toren, then most putative problems disappear... AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I, Robert Toren, use angrylambie as my domain and internet/pen name - Hedwig in Washington seems to have jumped the gun? Or is this how it's done? HiW thinks there may be issues with one or two images so marks ALL my uploads for deletion? Really? Hedwig, please remove those deletion requests. Write me at robert@angrylambie.com with questions or to do due diligence. -- 02:42, 15 October 2013 User:Angrylambie
Kept Seems plausible to me. Robert should follow up with an OTRS ticket though. --Dschwen (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
They have low resolution and do not have metadata of camera. They do not look like own work, but they look like advertising photos of company. Please see web page of the newspaper company and broadcast station. Uploader's other contribution was deleted due to copyright violation. Uploader has been asked about this on jawp. But uploader's activity has stopped. --Mugu-shisai (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--KAMUI (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if this is really own work, then the author must re-upload the files with full resolution. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this photograph of a coin has been freely licensed by the copyright holder. Eleassar (t/p) 08:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{PD-RO-exempt}} – for: (a) the ideas, theories, concepts, scientific discoveries, procedures, working methods, or mathematical concepts as such and inventions, contained in a work, whatever the manner of the adoption, writing, explanation or expression thereof; (b) official texts of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translations thereof; (c) official symbols of the State, public authorities and organizations, such as armorial bearings, seals, flags, emblems, shields, badges and medals; (d) means of payment; (e) news and press information; (f) simple facts and data; (g) the photographs of letters, deeds, documents of any kind, technical drawings and other similar papers.CristianChirita (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a Romanian, but a Roman coin (it is PD)! See [9]. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was migrated from russian wiki, i don't have other informations. Source: Russian Wikipedia, upload by Brandmeister if the orginal user does not respond please speed delete.CristianChirita (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, no photographer's permission, so this can be copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-free photograph of a coin. Eleassar (t/p) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission from photographer. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unknown source/photographer of this photograph of a bas relief. This is in no regard simpler than euro coins,[10] and it is comparable to [11]. Eleassar (t/p) 09:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is a absolute non-sense. This image depicts Trajan's Column, made 113 AD! Please stop all these ridiculous nominations for deletion! This image is used in hundreds of articles. This is akin to the other nomination on Trajan's Column --Codrin.B (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission of photographer, so can be copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
flickr-photos should contain a hyperlink to the original file and its author because it must be checked by a bot. Btw: The common flickr-licence is CC-SA 2.0. 91.66.153.214 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, unidentified people, out of scope. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
non-free picture, see source Yger (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal flag. Out of scope. The uploader's other contributions were also deleted. If kept, must be renamed. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, unidentified flag... fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, bogus license. JuTa 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator: Out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No permission given by the authors/copyright holders that this image was released under a GNU/CC license 88.64.119.195 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Sreejith K (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. Someone claiming to be the copyright holder is obviously unhappy about the image being hosted here. Unfortunately, they did not provide a link to their site, but the file was previously published here on 2008-10-01 (the site is using the ridiculously ambiguous and non-standard MM-DD-YY date format, which is apparent only by looking at other files), i.e. more than a year before it was uploaded here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Very likely Copyright violation, as the same image appears on the stock-photo page since 2008. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator out of scope, COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Also used by the BBC where it is watermarked "MATHMOS". This seems to contradict with the author claim on Commons. Stefan4 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely not realistically useful for an educational purpose - Commons is no place for private images High Contrast (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work - note the watermark in the image High Contrast (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyright violation, please see watermark on image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Watermarked, likely copyright violation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
File:En su viaje a Washington,Maryland el 17 de mayo de el 2012 Junto a el Ex presidente de El Salvador Paco Flores..jpg
[edit]Likely not realistically useful for an educational purpose - Commons is no place for private images High Contrast (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I can imagine how a 2012 photo of a person who was the President of El Salvador in 1999-2004 can be realistically useful for an educational purpose… -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete für die aktuelle Version mit dem eindeutig persönlichkeitsrechtlich ungeklärten Gesicht der Privatperson. Keep für ein Bildversion, bei der das Gesicht der Frau weggeschnitten ist. Ausserdem, handelt es sich um eine URV? Ich meine: kleines Bild, keine Exifs. MarkusJ
- Nu, tian ĉirkaŭtonditan version mi fakte eĉ jam pretigis, sed ne eblas alŝuti derivaĵon (almenaŭ ne per DerivativFx) dum super la originalo pendas DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The project has better photos of President of El Salvador in 1999-2004 than this snap. The lady is non-notable as far as I can tell, if you wish to keep the image of the guy, perhaps crop her out? Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- That’s precisely what’s being proposed above, in two languages, even — the cropping option. As for your statement that there’s better photos at Category:Francisco Flores Pérez, well, as you wish. I see there 3 images, including this one, another showing him 11 years earlier, and a 3rd image, from 2005, with very low pixel count where he shows up incidentally and lens distorted. I cannot see how one old photo plus a slightly less old but very low quality photo means «better photos». -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Tuvalkin. Yann (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Heart Attack Apparel is a Clothing Brand based in San Diego California- Started in September 2012 and growing in popularity threw musical talent such as Dante Bacote and branching out to action sports like bmx 2013-10-07 18-04.jpg
[edit]Out of scope: advertisement. Also potential copyvio: in particular the background of the logo is very complex. Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is another copy of this (larger) at [12], with the following info: "Heart Attack Apparel ™ Heartattackapparel.bigcartel.com ®". Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is advertising COM:ADVERT and the "threat" in the licensing is strange ("This design and brand name (Heart attack apparel) is owned and operated in San Diego California, Its a crime to steal or use other people's work and talent to sell or distribute without the approval of the owner. Any person/person's whom use this brand name or designs for anything other then non-profit/personal use such as (posts, screen savers, blogs or media) is committing a crime and will be prosecuted."). My question would be, then why place it on a free media repository? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I messed up during the upload process. This image is going to Teadusfoto 2013 competition but i didnt fill all needed boxes for it. Maido Merisalu (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of picture. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No permission given by the authors/copyright holders that this image was released under a GNU/CC license 88.64.119.195 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Sreejith K (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused blurry photo Taivo (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Re-upload of deleted file, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joymati6.jpg. Also nominated for deletion (by me) at En.WP: en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 14. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is strikingly similar to other images of en:Jyoti Prasad Agarwala. There is no doubt it is a posed publicity still that depicts Agarwalla and other members of his film production team. It most likely depicts him working on en:Joymoti (1935 film), as asserted by the source, but could conceivably be from en:Indramalati (1939), his second and last film. Either way, it was published well before the before the 1941 copyright cut-off. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Strikingly Similar"? Its the only sepia-tone image there. The other images that are on that page are a painting and a recent photo of a building. Although both films came out before 1941, there is no evidence that the image was published. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to Google images. Should have given this link. For what it is worth, this website also reproduces a slightly cropped version of the image to illustrate a short description of the film, as does this site, apparently using a better-quality copy. There really seems no doubt that this is a publicity still, and every reason to suppose that it was published around the time the film was released. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Silly nomination. He didn't have a film career after 1939 and the image clearly shows Agarwala preparing film. It clearly comes from the same batch as the others. To assume that the others were published and this not is a tall order. He's a cultural icon of Assam given that he made the first film in the country and I think it far more likely that the still was published in newspapers in Assam documenting it as the first movie than them choosing to ignore the very few images we have of it. He'd have released the photographs in conjunction with promoting the film. He'd have had works mentioning him and showing his stills long before 1992 anyway. To assume that anybody waited until 1992 just to publish that particular photo is ridiculous. Assam is a poorly developed part of India and web content for it is poor,so it's virtually impossible to find examples of its usage online but I think it's pretty basic common sense to assume good faith with it.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete {{PD-India}} requires evidence of publication. No evidence of publication has been provided. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The term "beyond a reasonable doubt" seems relevant. We have a publicity still from the first film made in Assam, which would have been a major event there, and we have three independent websites that reproduce versions of the image to illustrate articles on the film. Crop and quality variations show they are not cloning each other. There is no trace of any other publicity still. This would have been the one issued when the film was announced. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mild Keep I wasn't sure at first but after searching online, I think it's clear the film release in March 1935 was a hugely significant event in Assam. If I can presume to suggest what Aymatth2 might be referring to above, it's this series of images. In my opinion, the (sepia-tone) image in question is a still from footage shot on a similar film to the actual movie – it's got the same glassy quality as the screen shots – the different being that it has been pulled at a different time (obviously, because the screen shots were remastered decades later). I think it's inconceivable that such footage of the making of Joymoti and, particularly any stills, would not have found their way to publication/release to promote the first movie in the history of Assamese film-making; it's not as if anyone were waiting for the making-of documentary. (A couple of sites I visited: Assamspider on the making of the film, and Hindustan Times and a wordpress blog on the movie and the cultural significance of Joymati.) Aside from the notability attached to it being the first film made in Assam, I notice online mentions of the "acclaimed" and "notable" co-stars and the considerable expense involved in the production – I can't see that Agarwala or anyone else would have been shy about ensuring that publicity shots such as this were published to promote Joymati. I've done quite a bit of research in a professional capacity into pre-WWII government archives for this region: the premiere of Joymati would've been the event of the year. This is a "Keep" waiting to happen – somewhere, there are issues of the leading newspaper from this era, all archived. Having not found anything along those lines myself, I've gone for "Mild Keep" for now. JG66 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This sounds like another nomination where nitpicking outperformed common sense! JG66 has nicely summarized the rationale. Obvious keep.--Dwaipayanc (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As per arguments above. A publicity still from the first film made in Assam. No reasonable doubt that it is PD-India. Yann (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Not seeing any logo, just a green square which is probably out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's not easy being green. Fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo with bad quality. File description is "Not sure about this one" and I am also not convinced, that the file is usable. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose as it is a personal photo of dubious quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Although a poster, looks like an advert which is probably out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisements like this are usually copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Though I agree that such a poster (over which the festival does have copyright and has agreed to its use in Wikipedia) could be deemed to be advertisement, it does portray something of the essence of the festival. I will soon attempt to revise the whole entry so that it is less promotional and less full of redundant historical detail that has accumulated over years. I also sure that other festival participants and audience members would want the whole entry to continue to exist and also to be recorded more objectively as happened with other musical events and people whose wiki entries I started and which have been improved by others over time.--Farsee50 (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The file is used in en.wiki and therefore in scope. So only copyright issue. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I messed up during the upload process. This image is going to Teadusfoto 2013 competition but i didnt fill all needed boxes for it. Maido Merisalu (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of picture. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I messed up during the upload process. This image is going to Teadusfoto 2013 competition but i didnt fill all needed boxes for it. Maido Merisalu (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of the photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-free photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images. The supposed permission was not issued by the author or copyright holder, so the licensing is invalid in spite of having been "verified" by OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Not in scope since it's educational purpose is missing. The content is machin-translated text to something supposed to look like Swedish. In reality, it's Swedish and English words randomly typed on a paper, compeletly impossible to understand. -- Lavallen 15:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The index-page set up on sv.wikisource has been deleted. -- Lavallen 06:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused blurry photo Taivo (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the photo is blurry and not used; fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot, out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely not realistically useful for an educational purpose - Commons is no place for private images High Contrast (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused user photo. Stefan4 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No permission given by the authors/copyright holders that this image was released under a GNU/CC license 88.64.119.195 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I messed up during the upload process. This image is going to Teadusfoto 2013 competition but i didnt fill all needed boxes for it. Maido Merisalu (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of picture. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
non-free picture, see source Yger (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims. Found at http://becfrances.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/life-is-something-that-happens-when-you-cant-get-to-sleep-fran-lebowitz/ the year before it was uploaded here. The authorship claim for the user's only other upload has also been called into question. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The user has also been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia; see en:Special:Contributions/PumpTheBeat. Doesn't look like this person had any intentions of contributing productively. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, probable copyright violation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
According to EXIF data, author is probably not the uploader. No info on permission. Zavarych 16:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This looks to me like advertising or promotion COM:ADVERT. This photo is of someone in a band, there is a Russian Wiki page about the band. Many of the uploader's previous images have been deleted. This image is in use on Russian Wiki, but it is also uncategorized. The meta data gives the author as "Verhovin Evgeniy" which is not near the name of the uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is allowed to use this file or to put it into the Public Domain. 91.66.153.214 16:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Questionable that uploader is actual copyright holder. See http://www.justjaredjr.com/photo-gallery/391792/drew-van-acker-power-youth-02/ Ebyabe (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I messed up during the upload process. This image is going to Teadusfoto 2013 competition but i didnt fill all needed boxes for it. Maido Merisalu (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator who is also original uploader requesting deletion of picture. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
According to EXIF data, author is probably not the uploader. No info on permission. A.Savin 10:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Romania: non-free sculpture/architecture.
- File:2009-Statuie-detaliu- DSC00788.JPG — Sculptor?
- File:2009-Statuie-DSC00793.jpg
File:2011-Monument-IMG 4503.jpg- File:2011-Statuie,detaliu-IMG 4452.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie,detaliu-IMG 4458.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4454.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4467.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4471.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4473.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4477.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-detaliu-IMG 4478.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4444.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4447.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4449.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4456.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4497.jpg
- File:2011-Statuie-IMG 4501.jpg
- File:2011.10.20-Statuie-IMG 4457.jpg — Sculptor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)
- See [13] (Marius Butunoiu, d. 1999). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
File:2011.Piata-IMG 4466.jpg— I don't see anything copyrightable in this image.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)
- I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Cluj-Napoca, tram stop.jpg — I don't see anything copyrightable in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The plaque depicts a map and a tram. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- A bit absurd to consider the unified utilitarian sign symbol and a very simple line scheme (simple zigzag lines) as creative artworks. In addition, they are quite tiny toward the whole device - hardly can be seen as some violating "reproductions of creative works". Shoudn't we remove all photos of people in mediocre ready-to-wear clothes, all photos depicting automobiles produced in tausends etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The tram had to be drawn by someone, and the line scheme too. It is not an official work and it takes very little to meet the threshold of originality in the United States. The image and the line scheme are of essential importance to the sign designating a bus stop. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- A bit absurd to consider the unified utilitarian sign symbol and a very simple line scheme (simple zigzag lines) as creative artworks. In addition, they are quite tiny toward the whole device - hardly can be seen as some violating "reproductions of creative works". Shoudn't we remove all photos of people in mediocre ready-to-wear clothes, all photos depicting automobiles produced in tausends etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Mihai Viteazu Square, Cluj-Napoca - Hala agroalimentara.jpg
- File:Mihai Viteazul (Mihai Viteazul Square - Cluj-Napoca) - detail.jpg — looks rather old to me. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Mihai Viteazul (Mihai Viteazul Square - Cluj-Napoca).jpg — looks rather old. Sculptor? Installed in year?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)
- File:Piata Mihai Viteazul Cluj-Napoca.jpg
- File:Statue of Mihai Viteazul Cluj-Napoca - detail.jpg — looks old. Sculptor? Installed in year?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)
Eleassar (t/p) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep:
- File:Piata Mihai Viteazul Cluj-Napoca.jpg, File:2011-Monument-IMG_4503.jpg - Commons:De minimis at its best.
- File:2011.Piata-IMG 4466.jpg - per Turelio
Eleassar, please don't be lazy and actually analyze each picture, don't just request the delition of whole categories.--Strainu (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree on File:2011-Monument-IMG_4503.jpg and File:2011.Piata-IMG 4466.jpg, disagree on File:Piata Mihai Viteazul Cluj-Napoca.jpg - the building is the only object of interest, and certainly the image would be radically different without it. I always analyze each picture, but sometimes forget to actually exclude it at the end, so thanks for having spotted them. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The image would not be radically different without the block - it would still have the place (as in large, public location) in the foreground. Some of the elements in the picture might be copyrighted, bot not the main subject, the place.--Strainu (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The park would not be radically different, but it is hardly visible. The photograph would be, because the block takes an important and central place in it. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The image would not be radically different without the block - it would still have the place (as in large, public location) in the foreground. Some of the elements in the picture might be copyrighted, bot not the main subject, the place.--Strainu (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's clarify the terms here: you use central as "in the middle". Commons:De minimis uses the term "key part", which can also be called "central", but with the explanation: "eg it is the reason for taking the photo". This block is clearly not the reason the photo was taken. There is no reference to it in the title, description or usages of the photo.
Also, about the alleged importance of the block and lack of visibility of the park: I've done the math and the block takes about 15% of the surface of the image, while the foreground (park and street) takes around 33% and the sky above the block more than 40% of the image. The rest are other buildings and more sky. So the place (which is everything between the buildings surround it) is more than twice as large as the block.--Strainu (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- So your argument is that the block has been included "entirely accidentally and incidentally", it does not "form an essential part of the composition", and it is "shown with insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity". On the other hand, the park is an essential part and it is shown clearly and in detail. Is this correct? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Quoting out of context snippets of the policy does not make for an argument. My argument is that the image fits the following example: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless) ". It has not been included accidentally (using another angle would get that block out of the picture, but very likely include another one just like it) and is indeed identifiable, but not essential.--Strainu (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the photo would be radically different without this building, in the same manner as File:Carla del Ponte.jpg without Mladić or File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg without the graffito. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a big building in background in photo 4503. I opened the photo in full size and the building is sharp, with a lot of details. Unfortunately I do not consider this de minimis. This building is simply everywhere and spoils a lot of photos. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The tram stop sign had three items: logo, scheme of tramways and drawing of tram. I opened the photo in full size. The logo was still blurry and not readable, scheme of tramways also. So only drawing of tram remains. It seems to me, that every tram stop in whole city bears the same drawing. So this is probably part of official road sign. Road signs are not copyrighted. The most important issue for me was the same building in background, what spoiled image 4503, but photo about tram stop is not so big and the house is not so well seen, so I consider this de minimis. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, but two kept. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Romania: non-free monuments/architecture.
- File:2010-DSC06902.jpg (obelisk from 1977)
- File:2010-IMG 3792.jpg (monument from 1945 or later)
- File:2010-IMG 8592.jpg (monument from 1998)
- File:2010-Turda-IMG 1196.jpg
- File:2011-Bust-IMG 6915.jpg (monument from 1995)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Bustul lui Avram Iancu.JPG
- File:Baia de Arieş-Bustul lui Dr. Lazăr Chirilă.JPG (monument from 1964 or later)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Monument al Eroilor--IMG 2.JPG (Borderline case. Maybe too simple for copyright? Probably not: quite elaborate ornament on cross.)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Monument al Eroilor-IMG 1.JPG (monument from 1994)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-detaliu.JPG (monument from 1994)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-IMG 1.JPG (monument from 1994)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-IMG 2.JPG (monument from 1994)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-inscripție-IMG 1.JPG (monument from 1994)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-inscripție-IMG 2.JPG (monument from 1995. At first I thought, that no copyrightable details are seen, but so long text is itself copyrightable.)
- File:Baia de Arieş-Obelisc comemorativ-inscripție-IMG 3.JPG (Kept. No copyrightable details are seen. The text belongs to Avram Iancu, who died in 1872.)
File:Bistra,Alba-Monument-inscripție-IMG 2.JPG(Kept. No copyrightable details are seen. The text belongs to Petru Paul Aron, who died 1764.)File:Bistra,Alba-Monument-inscripție-IMG 3.JPG(Kept. No copyrightable details are seen. The text belongs to N. Iorga, who died a lot of time ago.)- File:Boldesti heroes monument.jpg
- File:Border-Giurgiu.jpg (monument from 1945 or later)
File:Bustul Domnitorului Ioan Cuza Grivita,Vaslui.jpg(Kept. Sculptor died in 1913.)- File:Bustul lui Mihai Eminescu (P-ta 1 Decembrie 1918).JPG (monument from 1969)
File:Cislau Independence Monument.jpg(Kept. Sculptor died in 1942.)- File:Cluj-Napoca Bustul lui A.I.Cuza de Marcel Voinea.jpg (monument from 1989)
- File:Cluj-Napoca Monumentul Rezistentei Anticomuniste 01.jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca Monumentul Rezistentei Anticomuniste 02.jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca Monumentul Rezistentei Anticomuniste 03.jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca, monumentul Stalpii Impuscati (01).jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca, monumentul Stalpii Impuscati (02).jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca, monumentul Stalpii Impuscati (03), placa comemorativa.jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Monumentul Rezistenței Anticomuniste-IMG 0674.JPG (monument from 1990 or later. Sorry, not a simple monument, not de minimis.)
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Monumentul Rezistenței Anticomuniste-IMG 1319.JPG (monument from 1990 or later. Sorry, not a simple monument, not de minimis.)
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Monumentul Rezistenței Anticomuniste-IMG 1324.JPG (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Avram Iancu-Monument,Glorie Ostașului Român-IMG 8884.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Avram Iancu-Monument,Glorie Ostașului Român-IMG 8889.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Avram Iancu-Monument,Glorie Ostașului Român-IMG 8892.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Avram Iancu-Monument,Glorie Ostașului Român-IMG 8896.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Avram Iancu-Monument,Glorie Ostașului Român-IMG 8916.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Gării-Bustul lui Horea-detaliu-IMG 4618.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Gării-Bustul lui Horea-IMG 4616.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Gării-Bustul lui Horea-IMG 4617.jpg
- File:Cluj-Napoca-Piața Unirii-Monumentul Eroilor Rev.din Dec.1989-IMG 5097.jpg (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:Cornesti,Cluj-DSCF3638.JPG (Borderline case. Maybe too simple for copyright? Probably not.)
File:Crimean War Memorial, Constanta.jpg(Kept. Monument existed in 1881.)- File:Câmpeni-Statuia lui Avram Iancu-detaliu-IMG 2.JPG
- File:Câmpeni-Statuia lui Avram Iancu-detaliu-IMG 3.JPG
- File:Câmpeni-Statuia lui Avram Iancu-detaliu-IMG 4.JPG
- File:Câmpeni-Statuia lui Avram Iancu-IMG 1.JPG
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Piața Mihai Viteazu-Bustul lui Mihai Viteazul-IMG 1954.jpg
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Piața Mihai Viteazu-Monument-IMG 6699.jpg (monument from 1945 or later)
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Str. Eroilor-Monument-IMG 8291.jpg (Monument from 1945 or later. It is not a simple obelisk and therefore eligible for copyright.)
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Str. Laminoriștilor-Primăria-IMG 1936..jpg (Monument is de minimis, but building behind it is not.)
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Str.1 Decembrie 1918-Bustul lui Pavel Dan-IMG 6503.jpg (monument from later than 1937)
- File:Câmpia Turzii-Str.Laminoriștilor-Bustul lui Avram Iancu-IMG 6423.jpg
- File:Foto 4. Monumentul Eroilor din Marin, ridicat in anul 1976 in cinstea eroilor cazuti in cele doua razboaie mondiale.JPG (monument from 1976)
- File:Gilău - Cluj - Monument-IMG 2757.jpg
- File:Kolozsvar Roman Iskola szoborcsoport.JPG (monument from 1973)
File:Lapidarium01.jpg(Kept. Sculptor died in 1929)- File:Lupșa,Alba-Crucea Eroilor-IMG 12.JPG (not too simple for copyright)
- File:ManastireaBicSJ (110).JPG (building from 1997?)
- File:Monument Decebal sword.jpg (seems modern)
- File:Monument Iuliu Maniu - Bucuresti.jpg (monument from 1998)
- File:Monument sabia Decebal.JPG (seems modern)
- File:MonumentRacoviţa.jpg (monument from 1938)
- File:Monumentul Eroilor - Piata Basarabiei.JPG (monument from 1945 or later)
- File:Monumentul Eroilor din Bucium.jpg
- File:Monumentul Eroilor din Bucium2.jpg
- File:Monumentul Eroilor din Bucium3.jpg
- File:Monumentul eroilor din Poiana Stampei.jpg
- File:Monumentul eroilor din unirea.jpg (Monument from 1919 or later, not sure, that it is old enough)
- File:Monumentul eroilor popesti.jpg (monument from 2007)
- File:Monumentul eroilor siret saucesti.jpg (monument from 1945 or later)
File:Monumentul.JPG(Kept. Monument is situated in Moldova and there is freedom of panorama in Moldova.)- File:OprisaniHCC2011.jpg (monument from 1976)
- File:RO BZ monument Mihai Viteazul.jpeg
- File:RSRevMon.JPG (monument from 1990 or later)
- File:S5300013eroicampina.JPG (modern building behind statue)
- File:Sighet.jpg (I uploaded File:House of memorial of victims of communism.jpg without copyrighted part)
- File:Statuia lui Mihai Viteazu din Cluj-Napoca.jpg (monument from 1976)
- File:Troita Junii Brasovecheni.jpg (monument from 1972)
- File:Un monument destinat renasterii satului Cheud.jpg
- File:Zur Erinnerung Decebal.JPG (seems modern)
Eleassar (t/p) 09:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comments in parentheses Taivo (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit] Keep This should not be done in bulk. Instead the dates and authors have to be determined on a case by case basis. Not two monuments are alike.
- I carefully reviewed them before I nominated them. Feel welcome to review them yourself and comment on them. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep The following files:
- File:Bistra,Alba-Monument-inscripție-IMG_2.JPG, File:Bistra,Alba-Monument-inscripție-IMG_3.JPG - just text wrote by people dead more than 70 years ago, inapt for copyright
- File:Bustul_Domnitorului_Ioan_Cuza_Grivita,Vaslui.jpg - according to [17], sculptor is ro:Constantin Bălăcescu, dead 1913
Analysis to be continued.--Strainu (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The text is as much copyrightable as anything else. Where is your evidence that these people died more than 70 years ago?
- I withdraw my nomination for File:Bustul_Domnitorului_Ioan_Cuza_Grivita,Vaslui.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- In the text itself. One is by Nicolae Iorga, the other seems to be by Petru Pavel Aron. Can you handle finding out when they died or should we do this for you too? I'm trying very hard to keep to WP:AGF, but your repeated claims of thorough investigation of these images are obviously fake.--Strainu (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info; I withdraw my nomination for the two too. I actually don't care what you assume. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info;
Keep The following files:
- File:Cislau_Independence_Monument.jpg - according to [18], sculptor is ro:Frederic Storck, dead 1942.
- File:Cornesti,Cluj-DSCF3638.JPG - I strongly doubt this is original enough for copyright protection. It's a box with a cross on top.
- File:Crimean_War_Memorial,_Constanta.jpg - According to [19], this is pre 1881. It is impossible to determine with reasonable efforts the architect, therefore this should be in the public domain.
- File:Câmpia_Turzii-Str._Eroilor-Monument-IMG_8291.jpg - I strongly doubt this is original enough for copyright protection
- File:Lapidarium01.jpg - statues by ro:Ettore Ferrari (dead 1929)
- File:Lupșa,Alba-Crucea_Eroilor-IMG_12.JPG - per this file's justification.
- File:Monumentul.JPG - per COM:FP#Moldova. Not 100% sure what monument it is, but the flag near it is not the Romanian one, but the flag of the Republic of Moldova.
Jury's still out for:
- File:Sighet.jpg - left part is ro:Închisoarea Sighet, in PD. Perhaps someone can crop the picture?
- File:S5300013eroicampina.JPG
File:MonumentRacoviţa.jpg - build pre 1940, probably author unknown- File:Border-Giurgiu.jpg - Russian architect, not sure Romanian law applies
- File:Monumentul_eroilor_din_unirea.jpg - pretty sure it's old enough, can't find any information online.
- File:Câmpeni-Statuia_lui_Avram_Iancu-detaliu-IMG_2.JPG
Any information on those would be appreciated.--Strainu (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Concerning File:Sighet.jpg, this photography showed a building and a commemorative tombstone. FOP about it? It isn't an artwork ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Great work, Strainu! I added the identified sculptor information to the corresponding images. Judging from how many images here fail the deletion request criteria, I have strong doubts about the "careful review" of Eleassar at this point. As I suggested before, and now I view this more strongly, each monument should be treated individually, not as a bulk delete. I agree that some of these crosses can hardly qualify as monuments and art. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep for File:MonumentRacoviţa.jpg: Built in 1938. If the author is not mentioned on it, it is fair to assume that the work is anonymous, therefore according to Romanian law, the copyright belongs to the person communicating the work to the public (mayor's office or some kind of government body). In that case copyright is 70 years from publishing (or in this case, unveiling).--Strainu (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- 1938 means that it is highly likely the author was still living in 1946. If the author is not mentioned, it is an en:orphan work. Per COM:Anonymous, we need a reliable source to state that a work is anonymous to be kept, and monuments are almost never anonymous. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. I've withdrawn the request (striken them out) for those four that are in the public domain. PD-simple can't apply for monument: they're not so simple after all, and there is no evidence of any threshold of originality in Romania. Also, the nationality of the sculptor has no role in the copyright status: for all people in Romania, the same laws apply. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Monumentul.JPG. The monument is located in Coșnița (see this news report). The file should be tagged with {{FoP-Moldova}} and renamed accordingly. // Gikü said done Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:37 (UTC)
- Thanks, I withdraw my nomination for this file. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks,
Deleted, but some kept. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Der Kaktuszüchter (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:Kaktus im Blumentopf .jpeg
- File:Kaktus - braune Erde blauer Hintergrund Malerei .jpeg
- File:Gemälde Kaktus Hintergrund Sonne .jpeg
Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Totally out of scope: Some childlike drawings of unnamed cacti. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Romania: non-free modern sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient source information. "FindAGrave.com" is very unspecific and the website usually doesn't tell where the images come from anyway. There is no evidence that the photo was taken in 1912, and even if there was taken at that time, there is no evidence that it was published at that time. Besides, this is a photo of a German guy, so it is likely that it was first published in Germany, and we don't know whether the photographer has been dead for 70 years or not. Stefan4 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For US copyright, necessary to establish pre-1923. all references [20] to the photo point to year 1912. He was promoted [21] to lieutenant commander in 1922 and this photo clearly precedes that based on his age apperance and uniform. Most photos such as this were commissioning photos done by the government and were anonymous, so this photo by german law would be considered in public domain 70 years after publication date. Since he died in 1939, it meets that criteria. Warfieldian (talk)
- The linked pages only suggest that the photo was taken in 1912, but there is no information about when or where it was first published. US copyright status depends on date of publication, not date of photography.
- There is no evidence that the photo is anonymous. The photo seems to come from a publication (although not necessarily a pre-1923 publication), and a minimum check would be to check whether the photographer is named in the initial publication of the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a military commissioning photo. They were taken in order to be published. All evidence and reasonable inference points to this photo being taken and published prior to 1923. Military photos of this type are not copyrighted by individual photographers. Warfieldian (talk)
- In Europe, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer as long as the photographer's identity has been revealed within 70 years after the photo was first published. The copyright holder might be someone other than the photographer, but this doesn't affect the copyright term. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a military commissioning photo. They were taken in order to be published. All evidence and reasonable inference points to this photo being taken and published prior to 1923. Military photos of this type are not copyrighted by individual photographers. Warfieldian (talk)
- There is no evidence that the photo is anonymous. The photo seems to come from a publication (although not necessarily a pre-1923 publication), and a minimum check would be to check whether the photographer is named in the initial publication of the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete it's a grey area in my opinion but you seem intent on deleting it. Warfieldian (talk)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/714184/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/21/714184.jpg = last modified: 21.11.2007, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") as it was previously published by 20mintos.es" via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/307643/0/miguel/bose/sida/ (17.11.2007) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/16/711408.jpg (last modified: 16.11.2007) given credits to "LA SEXTA", as also posterior via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/352301/0/patricia/conde/audiencias/ (21.02.2008) and http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/799993/0/nueva/temporada/slqh/ (29.08.2010).
The credit "LA SEXTA" indicates to en:laSexta, the sixth nationwide broadcast television station in Spain which broadcasted the related TV-program es:Sé lo que hicisteis.... This most likely a promotional photo, provided by "laSexta".
Gunnex (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, so many problems!
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Not seeing any logo, just a green square which is probably out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's not easy being green. Fails COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Yann. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this modern sculpture (by ?) is located indoors and thereby not covered by the freedom-of-panorama exemption of Polish copyright law. So, we need a permission of the sculptor or the file has to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Same problem with: File:Kraków, Teatr Bagatela. fot. 04.jpg
- The sculpture by Andrzej Zwolak is permanently exhibited in the publicly accessible theatre hall... Perhaps it would be possible to ask the sculptor (Fine Art Academy in Kraków) about his permission. He will be probably the same surprised by this problem as I am.
--Luxetowiec (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Luxetowiec, if you want to contact the sculptor, that would be great, as only he can give such a permission, not the owner of the material object. At Commons:OTRS/pl you find the process explained and probably also a permission template. This template needs to be adjusted, as the sculptor, being the creator and copyright-holder of the original artwork, needs to give permission that the above mentioned photos of his work can be distributed under a free license, which also allows commercial use and creating derivatives of the said photos. So, he does not need to put the artwork itself under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. I will try to contact the author of the sculpture byt I don't know how long it will last. --Luxetowiec (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if we get OTRS-permission, then it is possible to restore the files. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/989715 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/08/10/989715.jpg = last modified: 10.08.2009, see also file path, no credits given, tagged with "Rita Barberá, en una imagen de archivo.") and posterior published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/679936/0/barbera/gobierno/cabanyal/ (16.04.2010, no credits, redirecting to the file above) as it was previously published via http://blogsdelagente.com/thecantersport/2009/7/27/la-alcalsesa-valencia-babera-pide-fia-aplazar-sancion-a/ (27.07.2009) = http://blogsdelagente.com/blogfiles/thecantersport/fotonoticia_20090727164912.jpg (last modified: 27.07.2009). As source "Fuente: EUROPA PRESS" is cited. It is unknown if this is referring only to the text or text & image. "EUROPA PRESS" indicates to en:Europa Press (news agency), a Spanish independent, privately held news agency and works of Europa Press are traditionally excluded from the CC-license of 20minutos.es (archives from 2010, upload year in Commons).
Additionally, regarding the ominous credit "en una imagen de archivo" by 20minutos.es: Per COM:PRP, considering mass deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" + Commons talk:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" = (summary) "It was proven numerous times that "ARCHIVO" pictures from 20minutos.es are NOT created by 20minutos.es. See previous DRs."
Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercedes Milá3.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, so many problems!
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a non-free sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 07:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, File:Orastie Ethnography Museum 2011 - Dacian Draco-1.JPG. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is a museum item, not a non-free sculpture! --Codrin.B (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems modern. When and by whom was it created? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and irrelevant in this context. What rule are you invoking for this deletion request?! --Codrin.B (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Besides, this is not a "scupture". It is a reenactment of a Dacian draco for museum purposes. It consists of a real wolf head and and a leather tail. We are not talking about artists and art here! --Codrin.B (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is an object of art created by an artist. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is your twisted interpretation of "art" with which it is impossible to reason. Is a stuffed bird in natural history museum art?! This is a stuffed wolf head, to illustrate the symbol of the Dacians. It is from an archaeology museum entirely focused on the Dacian culture. It is not from a modern art museum! --Codrin.B (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is an object of art created by an artist. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep While almost impossible to determine the author, the Draco is a reproduction of an ancient sculpture, without enough original work to justify new copyright.--Strainu (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which ancient sculpture exactly? If it is not a replica, it is copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here, this Trajan's Column relief is at the basis of Dacian Draco replica, such as this.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It could be qualified as a derivative work, not as a replica (it is not an exact copy of the relief). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a common replica in Romania, at least. -- Saturnian (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- It could be qualified as a derivative work, not as a replica (it is not an exact copy of the relief). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here, this Trajan's Column relief is at the basis of Dacian Draco replica, such as this.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Romanian copyright law (law 8 of 1996) speaks of protecting "works of intellectual creation". A museum exhibit, almost by definition, is not a new intellectual creation but a reproduction of another creation, in cases where the exhibit isn't an original object. In this situation, the intellectual creator presumably died around 100 AD, meaning his copyright expired around 170 AD, if we are to apply Romanian law retroactively to the age of Marcus Aurelius. So we're safe. You can rest easy, Eleassar, in the knowledge that Dacian hordes are not going to rise out of their graves, cross the Atlantic and rush to the Federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia, which would have jurisdiction due to Wikimedia servers being located there. - Biruitorul (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a reproduction, because nothing exactly like it existed in the past. Intellectual effort and creativity had to be input in its design. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eleassar, Codrinb just showed you an example of such a thing on Trajan's Column and you're saying that it is not a reproduction? How does that work?--Strainu (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a derivative work, not an exact copy. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- And your arguments are? A museum is not a exhibition hall: when making reproductions, their employees take great care to reproduce the old artefact as precisely as possible, they don't "recast, transform, or adapt" as is mentioned in the law. en:Dacian_Draco gives a description of the device, with numerous sources, which sounds just one would describe this image.--Strainu (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the public part of the museum is like an exhibition hall, and they do "recast, transform or adapt". If they wanted to reproduce the old artefact from the Traian's Column as precisely as possible, they would make it of marble. A site featuring some Dacian dragons is [22]; they're similar, but none of them is the same as some other. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right, so from this discussion your conclusion is that Dracos where made out of marble? I guess all those sources in the en.wp article talking about the wolf head etc. are mere works of the imagination then...
- I understand that you take the commons policies to the letter (why by itself is a terrible idea), but you need to see what each of these words really mean in the context of a certain scientific field. And I'm pretty sure that museum workers and professional artists have very different working methods.--Strainu (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You understand incorrectly. My conclusion is that the relief at Trajan's Column, which has been referenced above, is made from marble, therefore if someone wanted to do a replica of it, he should choose the same material. The intent of the public part of the museum is to present history to the general public, not to foster advances in a certain scientific field, and to do so the museum uses creative works as much as anybody else. Your idea that items kept in a museum can't be copyrighted is funny and far-fetched. It is also clear from the link that I cited above that fabric-made dracos are diverse and as such creative works different enough to be copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is a derivative work, not an exact copy. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eleassar, Codrinb just showed you an example of such a thing on Trajan's Column and you're saying that it is not a reproduction? How does that work?--Strainu (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete If you combine parts of animals with other objects, you may create art. For example, the Swedish Museum for Modern Art has a goat with a tyre around the stomach in its collection (image, Wikipedia article). That goat is an artwork by Category:Robert Rauschenberg and appears to be copyrighted. I don't see why this item in Romania would be any different. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- "You may create art" does not necessarily mean "you do create art". The difference between a goat with a tire and a wolf head with snake-like tail are the historic sources: the draco is described in historic documents in just the form from this picture (see en.wp article), while the goat is just a work of art.
- I agree that my previous claim that "A museum is not a exhibition hall" is untrue for art museums. So let me rephrase that: a science museum is not an art museum, and MCDR is a science museum.--Strainu (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For those who don't know, this is a common replica of Dacian Draco from Trajan's Column that can be found on several history museums in Romania. -- Saturnian (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Most of the discussion above misunderstands copyright. Taxidermy is copyrightable. Animals stuffed in a museum have a copyright. If I sit down and paint a copy of a Rembrandt, long PD, even if I were an expert copyist and my work could fool experts, my work would still have its own copyright. This is by no means an exact copy of something ancient, but simply a represenation of it in a different form. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work. LGA talkedits 08:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this mosaic seems to be recent enough to be copyrightable, though name of artist is missing from image description. Regrettably, freedom-of-panorama exemption in Czech republic is restricted to outdoor works. So, either we get a permission from the original artist or the mosaic is "censored" from the photo or it needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Czech Copyright Act says nothing about "indoor" or "outdoor". It use the words "veřejné prostranství" (= cca. public space, public area, public ground). A rough interpretation cannot be blindly applied without considering a nature and purpose of such place. The term veřejné prostranství is defined in the Municipal Act (§ 34 zák. 128/2000 Sb.) and e. g. markets are named explicitly as examples of public spaces - independently on the fact whether they are indoor or outdoor. A main pass-trough spacious station hall or vestibule can undoubtedly fall under the term "prostranství" and cannot be compared to an art gallery, office or concert hall. --ŠJů (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- That may be true, however, it seems to contradict the current statements in Commons:FOP#Czech Republic. If you are sure about your interpretation, I would recommend you to open a discussion on Commons:FOP-talkpage, in order to eventually amend our synopsis. In addition to that, you should add the name of the original artist to the image description, as attribution is usually required for FOP-usage. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don’t think Czech FOP is restricted to outdoor works only, and I don’t see such restriction at COM:FOP either. Whether this specific case, a train station (operated by a state-owned company), can be considered public space, I am not completely sure. Off-hand, I would guess it does, but I’d need to look for some sources/judicature. --Mormegil (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, our freedom-of-panorama synopsis currently states "this copyright exception does not apply to shopping center interiors, waiting rooms, museums, galleries, concert halls etc., even if they are accessible to general public". --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Before keeping this, we must agree to change Commons:FOP#Czech Republic. Since the provisions of that are largely taken from the writings of a Czech copyright expert, I doubt that will happen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused little photo. Description "Festival" is not enough. The uploader's all other contributions are deleted due to copyright issues. Taivo (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator: this photo is unused and unidentified. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Map template compiled by Thomas Lessman. Missing evidence of permission. Eleassar (t/p) 10:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- My understandin is T Lessman has stated that his maps (and therfore templates) can be used in Wiki as long as he is attributed , as has been done so. Eg his statement here [23] Slovenski Volk (talk)
- The link to the template map is needed. Has it been uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons under a free license or is it available only at Lessman's own website? --Eleassar (t/p) 05:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here is his own webpage [24] where he states that he apparently created the base himself. He iterates that they can be used on Wiki , with attribution...Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to the cited page, he has published these maps under the "CC-by-nc-nd-3.0 US License", which means "no derivatives" and "non-commercial use only". Per COM:L, all the content must be available under a free license that allows for derivatives as well as any commercial exploitation. This means that the map does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Commons, unless one can find it among the ones uploaded by Lessman himself.[25] --Eleassar (t/p) 07:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've sent T Lessman a mail with a request to comment here. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The link to the template map is needed. Has it been uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons under a free license or is it available only at Lessman's own website? --Eleassar (t/p) 05:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. Im not sure if he's still "active". Worst case scenario , Ill jus thave to make a new map . Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- So the original template is actually an amalgamation of public domain NASA satellite images. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission for use on Wiki is not enough -- we, and WP, require permission to use anywhere, We also do not allow NC or ND. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No source and permission for the aerial view; unlikely own work. Eleassar (t/p) 10:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No source and permission for the satellite photograph. Eleassar (t/p) 10:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No source and permission for the satellite photograph. Eleassar (t/p) 10:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Blank template from Euratlas.com (with permission). No evidence of permission. Eleassar (t/p) 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Euratlas.com has a formal copyright notice. There is no evidence of permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks strangely like the page that appears on en wiki for the same subject. I feel that this page is out of project scope. Flickrworker (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (author). First, let's get it straight - it looks nothing like the Wikipedia page, as anyone can see. Second, the only non-image information it contains is of the type that is directly relevant to understanding the images themselves, such as the dates and other details found in Background, and things like box type, code, recipient and coords found in the table, hence it is a perfectly valid gallery, completely in scope. Ultra7 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I think you need to look again tbf. A list of postboxes but with images, instead of a list and separate photo section. Some stuff about unofficial postboxes and the Irish thing may not be identical but very similar and all sourced. But the thing about Northern Irish athletes in general on here (not a reason to delete) is highly inaccurate as it is about Northern Irish athletes who represented Ireland as some did represent GB. Secondly is does the page really need to explain the first one? (not even on wiki) The Heather Stanning post box? (not even on wiki) Do we really need to write about the type? (note not even on the wiki page) Are their any references in the page for the "background notes?" Answer: Nope. Is this really an appropriate page when Commons is a collection of photographs, logos, artwork and occasionally filmwork? I think not and therefore more in keep with what one finds on wiki. So why don't you Ultra find some refs and improve the wiki page instead of creating stuff which is broadly out of scope (or at least bordering, since you're arguing otherwise.) Flickrworker (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am arguing otherwise. They are totally different. One is an article with general information, a lot of which has nothing to do with the specific boxes, and a table focused more on the recipient and their sport than the box, whereas this gallery only contains text relevant to understanding the images, and a table which is all about allowing people to research and review the images along their different shared visual characteristics (such as type!), or even just identify a box that they only have partial information about. Therefore, it's pretty obvious to anyone who compares the two, that the purpose of this gallery is not 'education through text' (ie duplicating Wikipedia), it is identification of and education about existing or potential images of the boxes, in as many ways as is meaningful to that specific purpose (ie what, why, where, when), which is 100% in line with Commons scope. There is nothing on this page that is redundant to that purpose. And I should know, because it was me who researched and uploaded most of the images of gold boxes now on Commons, so please credit with me with knowing what was and was not important to that task (and please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect). Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is your view point but I have issue with this. please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect. Lets be honest and if Wikipedia was edited properly that would have been removed for OR. Every statement needs a source. Flickrworker (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am arguing otherwise. They are totally different. One is an article with general information, a lot of which has nothing to do with the specific boxes, and a table focused more on the recipient and their sport than the box, whereas this gallery only contains text relevant to understanding the images, and a table which is all about allowing people to research and review the images along their different shared visual characteristics (such as type!), or even just identify a box that they only have partial information about. Therefore, it's pretty obvious to anyone who compares the two, that the purpose of this gallery is not 'education through text' (ie duplicating Wikipedia), it is identification of and education about existing or potential images of the boxes, in as many ways as is meaningful to that specific purpose (ie what, why, where, when), which is 100% in line with Commons scope. There is nothing on this page that is redundant to that purpose. And I should know, because it was me who researched and uploaded most of the images of gold boxes now on Commons, so please credit with me with knowing what was and was not important to that task (and please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect). Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I think you need to look again tbf. A list of postboxes but with images, instead of a list and separate photo section. Some stuff about unofficial postboxes and the Irish thing may not be identical but very similar and all sourced. But the thing about Northern Irish athletes in general on here (not a reason to delete) is highly inaccurate as it is about Northern Irish athletes who represented Ireland as some did represent GB. Secondly is does the page really need to explain the first one? (not even on wiki) The Heather Stanning post box? (not even on wiki) Do we really need to write about the type? (note not even on the wiki page) Are their any references in the page for the "background notes?" Answer: Nope. Is this really an appropriate page when Commons is a collection of photographs, logos, artwork and occasionally filmwork? I think not and therefore more in keep with what one finds on wiki. So why don't you Ultra find some refs and improve the wiki page instead of creating stuff which is broadly out of scope (or at least bordering, since you're arguing otherwise.) Flickrworker (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Wiki is for articles, Commons for media. BUT: In this case a sortable table makes more sense rather than having a standard gallery with one image each. Some text removed, I believe the text part could be condensed more. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I am the original author of this page, which originally contained a set of comprehensive explanatory notes that were of use to future re-users/uploaders of this large and complex collection of media. That text has subsequently been deleted by User:Hedwig in Washington after his closure of the original deletion request, and replaced with a brief introductory paragraph. Because his replacement text is both inaccurate and misleading (boxes were not awarded just to Brits, there is not simply one box for "each gold medallist" - that's not how the scheme was implement and nor was that even the original plan, all but 2 boxes were painted by the Royal Mail, and images of the related stamps cannot even be uploaded to Commons), then I request deletion of this gallery on the grounds that because he refuses to fix his replacement text, and has threatened to block me if I attempt to remove the errors myself (calling such attempts vandalism no less), then I am still effectively the "sole author" (one other person has added one image, which is nice but a largely trivial edit in comparison to my efforts), and thus I am entitled to request deletion as such. I do not want my name associated with a gallery which is, without proper explanatory notes, impossible for any future re-users/uploaders to understand - and which actually adds to the confusion by misleading them. For the avoidance of doubt, as I know he will claim otherwise - the explanatory notes were in no way an "article", and the text that was removed was not redundant to Wikipedia for two reasons - the poor state of the current article (it is wholly incomplete, missing details that were only present in those notes), and the likely rejection of many of the notes from a theoretically perfect future Wikipedia article as trivial or ephemeral information. I am pursuing this deletion as the only alternative after my complaints about this to User:Hedwig in Washington merely resulted in me, a Commons contributor with thousands of uploads and edits over 5 years, being simply ignored and even insulted. Ultra7 (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gee. I never threatened to block you if you correct anything. I said just don't make it an article. Instead of doing so, you complained like a little child who's lolly got taken away. Do you want a medal rewarded for your work? Or a golden post box? Or should we create a second set of rules, just for you? May I remind you of this? If you can't work in a team, you're probably in the wrong spot. I offered you a way out of this, you declined. It can only be your way, according to you that is. That is not how it works on Commons.
- Finally: Keep Invalid reason given. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Author request is a valid reason to delete - if you had deleted that text within 7 days, I could have just speedy deleted the whole thing no questions asked. No second set of rules is required - despite the fact you keep repeating it as if it was true, you have not shown that what you removed was an "article" - and how could you, you didn't even read it. What you removed was not an article, and what you replaced it with is utter garbage. Your 'way out' of that situation is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la' when I ask you to explain yourself, and expect me to fix your garbage. Your idea of working in teams is to destroy a gallery that was created by me, then insult me and ignore me, then insult me a bit more, and now lie about not having threatened to block me (if you want to withdraw your statement "Reverting my edit without good reason can be considered an act of vandalism" then go ahead, when you do, I will the proceed to fix the gallery for the "good reason" that you have introduced inaccurate and misleading text into it). You talking here about working in teams after the way you've acted toward me, is frankly a joke. Ultra7 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- In response to this request to withdraw this DR from User:Wsiegmund - my response is as follows: I'll only withdraw it if the gallery is restored either to my original version (after which there can be a proper discussion about how helpful or unhelpful it is for re-users/uploaders to have no explanatory notes), or if it is restored to this version (minus wikilink, in deference to interwikis), which is the only version I am happy to leave it in if, as I suspect, once it closes, nobody is going to make sure that whatever is put in to replace my text is actually accurate. Otherwise, I stand by my rights as sole author to have it deleted - if I am to be denied that right, then another administrator is going to have to put his name to that decision to retain it in the face of objections of the sole author and in full acknowledgement that the current state of the introductory text is inaccurate, and thus not in compliance with Commons policy, whatever the merits of the original version. Ultra7 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Invalid reason given for deletion- it has been released to, edited by, and is now owned collectively by, the Commons community. "Rights as sole author" are a myth and should be disregarded as should purported conditions for keeping. By all means discuss what the content should be, but that belongs on the Talk page thoughtfully provided for the purpose and should be well-mannered. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rights as sole author are most certainly not a myth - read COM:CSD General #7. Sole authors have rights on Commons - they can have their work deleted even after it has been released - so any claims to the contrary are totally false. There is a 7 day limit, but that clearly doesn't refer to any legal time frame after which ownership transfers from the author to 'the community'. It's not "owned" by the community at all in fact, from the second it's released it's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who would probably courtesy delete it tomorrow if I sent them an email detailing how badly I've been treated in return for donating the hundreds of man hours it took to create this gallery. The 7 days is merely an administrative grace period - a recognition that beyond 7 days it's more than likely that others will have put effort into the work and therefore the community is entitled to a say if it's proposed for deletion. In this case however, 'the community' clearly has absolutely no moral claim on the work, and your suggestion it does because it has been "Edited by the community" - a trivial addition of a single image, and a large scale deletion of text - are clearly absurd. So please, don't talk about manners when you're so blatantly advocating a response to my wishes which is as ill-mannered as you can get - not far short of theft really. Ultra7 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- How about you take my comments in the spirit of improving Commons rather than sniping and virtually accusing me of "theft", whatever that means in the context. I'm really surprised your attitude hasn't yet got you blocked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I took your comments in the spirit they appear to be written - and how else is anyone really supposed to take the suggestion that putting 99.99% of the effort into creating a gallery makes it 'community property', especially when coupled with a patently false claim that Commons doesn't respect the rights of sole authors. That's the context of the 'theft' I speak of. I will AGF if you say you simply made a mistake and withdraw/refactor your remarks, it's not unknown after all for people to be unaware of the finer points of COM:CSD or to have not fully examined the contribution history of something. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- How about you take my comments in the spirit of improving Commons rather than sniping and virtually accusing me of "theft", whatever that means in the context. I'm really surprised your attitude hasn't yet got you blocked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool down, Ultra7, please. I understand your feelings; but I think experianced admins like HJ Mitchell and Walter Siegmund already responded to that matter. I don't think "Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content." has much weight here "since no one "owns" any part of any article". More over this page can be easily reproducable by anybody else without violating any copyrights. So I suggest you to withdraw this DR as advised by Walter Siegmund. JKadavoor Jee 02:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't about copyright (CSD G7 after all isn't a copyright clause) and I am not claiming ownership beyond what already underpins the concept of CSD G7, which after all allows sole author deletion even though nobody 'owns' anything they post here from the second it's released. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, good page, maybe can be done even better. Taivo (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Acccording to the source I found, which is exactly this image, the poster stems from 1939, so I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder or author besides which in Dutch law 70 years pma applies but we don't know the artist, so we cannot be sure of the copyright status. Ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of award. Stefan4 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- ...to uniquely identify and illustrate that year's Hugo Award and its design as discussed in the article on which it appears on the English Wikipedia. Dravecky (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Perfectly fine use, but the sculpture is copyrighted and we can't keep it here -- or on WP:EN -- without permission from the sculptor. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of the things printed on the machine. Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete: it appears that URAA applies because this image was only 47 years old when the copyright was restored. Ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- u got it wrong somehow. This image is from 1949. It appears on an Israeli government website. Copyright for images in Israel is 50 years from the day of taking of the image. Therefore this image is copyright free since 1999. It is not copyrighted also in the US (and never was). Deror avi (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually are wrong, commons images must be freely licenced in both the source country AND in the United States. It may be free according to what you say, but I don't think this can be free in the US because even though for works created before 1964 copyright expires 28 years after publication per: Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain we unfortunately don't know if this image was even published or, if it was, when did that happen. Ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- If what you say is correct, then NO photo taken in Israel should be uploaded to Commons, except for photos where the copyright owner released his rights. According to your statement the licence template {{PD-Israel}} is worthless in Commons. Please check your statement carefully as i doubt its correctness. In any case i will refrain from uploading ANY file to Commons until this issue is clarified. It is just a pity i was wasting days to upload dozens of israeli images as i could habe better uploaded them to the Hebrew Wiki in the first place. Regards --kippi70 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, As I understand policy you should not upload any photos that do not identify the author and whose copyright status we known. I doubt that {{PD-Israel}}, which does not actually mentions the need for an author, overrides the need for the author details per: Commons:Upload/Unknown author or license. Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to the Israeli copyright law (for photos older than 2008) the author is of no importance, only the date of creation is important. There are many images from the above source with an unknown author, and a large part of the photos i uploaded have an unknown author (as this it plays no role in IL in determining if the image is in PD or not). I'm glad now i insisted on uploading many photos directly to the Hebrew Wiki eventhough i was critisized for doing so. Again, if only photos from Israel with a known author are allowed here, probably about half of those that are already here should be deleted. Regards kippi70 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, As I understand policy you should not upload any photos that do not identify the author and whose copyright status we known. I doubt that {{PD-Israel}}, which does not actually mentions the need for an author, overrides the need for the author details per: Commons:Upload/Unknown author or license. Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- If what you say is correct, then NO photo taken in Israel should be uploaded to Commons, except for photos where the copyright owner released his rights. According to your statement the licence template {{PD-Israel}} is worthless in Commons. Please check your statement carefully as i doubt its correctness. In any case i will refrain from uploading ANY file to Commons until this issue is clarified. It is just a pity i was wasting days to upload dozens of israeli images as i could habe better uploaded them to the Hebrew Wiki in the first place. Regards --kippi70 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually are wrong, commons images must be freely licenced in both the source country AND in the United States. It may be free according to what you say, but I don't think this can be free in the US because even though for works created before 1964 copyright expires 28 years after publication per: Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain we unfortunately don't know if this image was even published or, if it was, when did that happen. Ww2censor (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not free in Israel on the URAA date, therefore still under copyright in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete: The source does not indicate an author and there is no proof that image is in the public domain as tagged. Ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Angoumois inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
according description this image was created 1924 and has the license {{PD-1923}}. This conflicts. Is it PD by any other reason? JuTa 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Auvergne inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Bassigny inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work - seems to be some TV capture
- also for this file: File:Skjerm.jpg
High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of sign. Stefan4 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep How does this picture differ from any other listed in Category:Cannabis shops in Denver? Or the myriad pictures in Category:Signs for that matter? Enderandpeter (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- See for example w:Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. You can't take photos of artworks and print them on postal stamps in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- What have postal stamps got to do with anything? The determining factor here is whether or not FOP applies, and, as US FOP law does not cover signs, what the copyright status of the horse thingy itself is. For all we know it could very well be a public domain icon they used or released, or it could be an original copyrighted work, and determining that would be much more productive than bringing up largely unrelated cases.
- (Note that had the picture been of both the building and sign, the sign could be considered incidental, or some such, which probably explains the other ones. That just isn't the case here.) -— Isarra ༆ 21:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- See for example w:Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. You can't take photos of artworks and print them on postal stamps in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, if I was going to print that picture on a postage stamp, then I'd say you got me. But this is Commons, good sir, where images of signs have their own undisputed category. Are you planning to protest every single picture of a sign advertising a business on this site? Such an endeavor would be fruitless. Enderandpeter (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but all files on Commons must be free to be used for any purpose. This isn't the case with this image, as you can't print it on stamps. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are quite a few pictures here that a party or two would protest putting on a stamp, but I really don't think that's the real issue here. FOP clearly applies to this picture because it's a sign that's simply outside. It's out there on permanent display, for as long as they're around, anyway. Do you object to the content in Category:Pepsi signs, Category:Signs of IKEA or the variety of unique artwork to be found in Category:Signs? We can't say anything definitive about the copyright status of the horse, the cross, or the font in that sign. Unless there's a concrete objection regarding the known copyright of this sign, I don't see a reason to remove this one when you have such a large pool of far more contentious material on which to practice deletionism. There does not appear to be any kind of general ban on store signs in Commons, even those with clearly copyrighted material like company logos. Enderandpeter (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#United States clearly doesn't apply because COM:FOP#United States only applies to buildings. A sign is not a building. The signs in Category:Signs of IKEA appear to be below the threshold of originality, but this isn't the case with this sign. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, if I was going to print that picture on a postage stamp, then I'd say you got me. But this is Commons, good sir, where images of signs have their own undisputed category. Are you planning to protest every single picture of a sign advertising a business on this site? Such an endeavor would be fruitless. Enderandpeter (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Isarra that drawing Pegasus on a green square doesn't sound like it meets the COM:threshold of originality, and with Enderandpeter that there are already a ton of store signs on Commons. Are there any guidelines on figuring out or determining threshold of originality under US law? -- Gaurav (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The sign is a logo. A good example of originality requirements is http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf as the first page contains two very similar logo, one which is sufficiently original and one which isn't. As the logo on the sign is a lot more complex than both logos in that PDF file, there is no question that this sign is copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, and the Ikea signs don't have the Ikea logo on them? The Pepsi signs are devoid of Pepsi logos? Spurious logic, I think... Enderandpeter (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Ikea logo is below the threshold of originality (see COM:TOO) and is therefore a nonissue. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, again, there are quite a few signs in Category:Signs alone that look very original. You can find a lot of signs in Commons that have company logos, especially the Pepsi ones, and I doubt Ikea considers their logo as free as you seem to. It certainly has distinguishable characteristics. It tends to be yellow block letters on a blue background and it tends to look fairly uniform across the pictures here. In the end, I can't determine why this photo seems more contentious than the many other signs on Commons that clearly contain graphic designs by companies who have vocally defended their copyright. Regardless, the seven day threshold approaches and there's nothing but Keep votes up here, so the lack of other objections seems to suggest a consensus... Enderandpeter (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- See w:WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. If you find other unfree signs, feel free to nominate them for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, and the Ikea signs don't have the Ikea logo on them? The Pepsi signs are devoid of Pepsi logos? Spurious logic, I think... Enderandpeter (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly copyrightable. Other things exist arguments are not helpful -- the fact that there are certainly many images on Commons that do not belong here is well known and can't be used to argue that we should keep more of them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
bogus license. A recent photo from 2000 does not have anything to do in {{PD-URAA}} JuTa 22:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Photo of photo. Source and copyright status of the underlying photo unknown. Stefan4 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:TOYS Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I created the image, but I also support its deletion. It is a picture I took of a chess piece that is modeled after the Lewis Chessmen. The image, however, is rather poor. Delete. Em-jay-es (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Without permission since 24 September 2013 Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the uploader took this photo in 1931 as currently claimed. Stefan4 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio. Two similar images appear at http://kyujosyo.seesaa.net/article/312301040.html Stefan4 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an artwork of unknown age in New York. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
WWI photo, so unlikely taken by the uploader as currently claimed. Something is written in the bottom right corner, but I can't see what it is. Might be the photographer's name or something. Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It looks like a name, place, and year, so it isn't anonymous. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Historic Engineering Marker plaque next to the section of the old railway bridge in Wagga Wagga.jpeg
[edit]No freedom of panorama for text in Australia. Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I suggest that if that truly is the case, then (nearly) every file in Category:Plaques in Australia and Category:Foundation stones in Australia should be co-nominated. Alternatively, we could apply some common sense. I will leave it up to the nominator. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I would suggest Prove it - please relate where and how the clause and or text that asserts or located that needs to be laid out somewhere or linked to... sats (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:EVIDENCE. That tells that it is the uploader's responsibility to add a correct copyright tag for the text - I only need to show that the present copyright tag is wrong. Also, COM:FOP#Australia only mentions subsets of artistic works. There is nothing about literary works there. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a literary work, it is an artistic work that includes some words. It is certainly a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Again, I would like your comment and feedback about the contents of Category:Plaques in Australia and Category:Foundation stones in Australia. What puts this specific picture in breach, and not the others. If the others are, then I humbly suggest that it requires a more general discussion about the principles involved. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I find it difficult as to how it could be deemed a literary work. I also agree with Mattinbgn that this requires moe general discussion sats (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any copyrightable text is a literary work. This doesn't seem to be a work of artistic craftsmanship as mentioned in COM:FOP#Australia. This is really just the same thing as what we were discussing in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Information boards in England. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- But a plaque isn't an information board! Tablets/plaques, whether they're stone, bronze or brass; are "artistic works", unlike an information board which isn't seen as an "artistic work". The FOP in Australia, like the copyright law for simplistic works is rather a grey area that is really untested. I totally agree with what User:Fry1989 has stated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/Australia, since the Aboriginal Flag court case left more questions than clear answers and to state that British laws gives guidance to Australian laws is just armchair laywerism. No wonder why people think Commons is broken, I'm starting to think that it's time to start relocating files back to Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any copyrightable text is a literary work. This doesn't seem to be a work of artistic craftsmanship as mentioned in COM:FOP#Australia. This is really just the same thing as what we were discussing in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Information boards in England. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I find it difficult as to how it could be deemed a literary work. I also agree with Mattinbgn that this requires moe general discussion sats (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a literary work, it is an artistic work that includes some words. It is certainly a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Again, I would like your comment and feedback about the contents of Category:Plaques in Australia and Category:Foundation stones in Australia. What puts this specific picture in breach, and not the others. If the others are, then I humbly suggest that it requires a more general discussion about the principles involved. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:EVIDENCE. That tells that it is the uploader's responsibility to add a correct copyright tag for the text - I only need to show that the present copyright tag is wrong. Also, COM:FOP#Australia only mentions subsets of artistic works. There is nothing about literary works there. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Its a 3 dimensional bronze work permanently situated in a public place that also includes text Australian FOP clearly applies, also its a falacy that UK laws apply in Australia. Gnangarra 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- No one has claimed that UK laws apply in Australia. However, the Australian law is based on the British one. The problem is that COM:FOP#Australia only applies to artistic things, but the text isn't artistic but literary. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly copyrighted as a literary work. Text beyond a sentence has a copyright almost everywhere in the world. Putting it on a plaque doesn't change that. THis has three sentences and almost 100 words. The fact that we have many plaques that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one -- just the opposite -- it is a reason to make it easier to eliminate problem files. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
iOS is copyrighted DominikKorthaus (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the image is simple enough to be public domain. It consits from text and one single-colored simple camera image. --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
iPhone is copyrighted DominikKorthaus (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do we really have to go through this again? Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Zach Vega Nummer 12 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW of award Stefan4 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. Putting macaroni hair on a plate doesn't make the art on the plate in the public domain. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The original blank map was taken from Euratlas.com. Eleassar (t/p) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't create this (or the others); this image was tagged as suitable for upload from en.wikipedia, and I don't see any problem with the licensing. The blank map functions as a template; use of the original (blank) map without permission would be a copyvio, but the template has been elaborated. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Switzerland (which governs euratlas.com), "To be eligible for copyright in the first place, a work must be of individual character, i.e. be an individual expression of thought". I don't think a blank map has "individual character". Miniapolis (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment A link to the blank map would be helpful. Miniapolis (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright on maps depends on colours, thickness of lines, elements which are shown, the cartographic generalisation etc. All these aspects must be considered when creating a new blank map. We would really need to know what was the original map, otherwise the copyright status remains unclear. I'd say that the original was this map, but can't know for sure. In any case, the base map seems to have been simply copied, with the addition of new elements on top of it. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Even a completely blank map -- only continental outlines -- will have a copyirght in the USA and many other countries. This base map has, in addition, relief and hydrography. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Canada doesn't cover text. Stefan4 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nomination. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Stefan4 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be scan from book - no evidence that uploader is copyright holder - possibly this one given the text "Storia dell'Aviazione Vol.7". Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Copy of box art of plastic model - see [26]. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This does not appear to be the work of the uploader, with the source being "Enciclopedia dell'aviazione volume 7" and the author "Fratelli Fabbri editori" Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- See talk page for comment from uploader, who claims to have authorisation for use of the image.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder Werieth (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with hhttp://www.20minutos.es/imagen/756746 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/02/01/756746.jpg = last modified: 01.02.2008, see also file path, no credits given, normally "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/342995/0/ramon/alonso/piloto/) as it is credited 5 months later via http://www.automobilsport.com/superleague-formula-alonso-ramon-spanish-world-champion-aerobatic-skies-pilot---40218.html (07.2008) with "photo Superleague Formula". It could be also a credit related to http://www.flickr.com/photos/7480659@N06/2630377417/ (uploaded 2 days earlierer).
Mysteriously the image was retouched: Note that in the 20minutos.es-version all references (url + logos) related to "www.superleagueformula.com" ("SF") disappeared from the wings and other parts from the plane. In other words: The 20minutos.es-version is most likely the original and the above Flickr-source is manipulated. But: This image was most likely taken during the 2007 "FAI Al-Ain International Aerobatic Competition" in United Arab Emirates (see the "Al-Ain"-logo on the wings) and it is unlikely that 20minutos.es sent a photographer to United Arab Emirates to take this picture.
Concerning credits given by 20minutos.es 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" or with no credits. The whole bandwith of copyright problems concerning 20minutos.es is available via Category:20minutos.es related deletion requests. Gunnex (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Amazing work of investigation, Gunnex, thanks. I agree that the Senasa (against SF) is the original photo and that it is unlikely they would have sent a photographer to UAE, however they could have acquired it from a local source, and there is no proof against it, other than previous experience with 20minutos.es cheating. If this is enough, plese, go ahead. Regards, Gons (¿Digame?) 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. This whole 20 minutes thing is a mess, thank you to Gunnex for all the work to expose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder Werieth (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of notice by Hovertravel Ltd. Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Without permission for almost a month Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: painting by the late Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) uploaded to illustrate an article about him (yet deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak and incomplete source information; very likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: painting by the late Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) uploaded to illustrate an article about him (yet deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Notability of portrayed at the photo Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) was not proven in ru.wiki, the article is deleted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Notability of portrayed at the photo Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) was not proven in ru.wiki, the article is deleted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: painting by the late Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) uploaded to illustrate an article about him (yet deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: painting by the late Russian painter Yury Matushevsky (1930—1999) uploaded to illustrate an article about him (yet deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fountains in Deva
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Romania: non-free sculptural/architectural works.
Eleassar (t/p) 08:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:KKonstantin
[edit]User KKonstantin has uploaded these files:
- File:Beresteyska.jpg
- File:Beresteyska1.jpg
- File:Beresteyska2.jpg
- File:Beresteyska3.jpg
- File:Palats Sportu.jpg
- File:Palats Sportu1.jpg
- File:Palats Sportu4.jpg
- File:Palats Sportu5.jpg
- File:Palats Sportu6.jpg
File:Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho.jpgFile:Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho1.jpgFile:Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho2.jpgFile:Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho4.jpg- File:Lukyanivska4.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska5.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska6.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska7.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska8.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska9-1.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska9-3.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska9-4.jpg
- File:Lukyanivska9.jpg
File:Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho5.jpg
They are all small photos with bad quality and bad composition. They depict non-notable people in public places, nothing interesting. Some photos depict prominently modern buildings (subway stations), but there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- For Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho we received OTRS permission from architector recently, so it does not fall under NoFoP.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see OTRS ticket. Where is the permission? Taivo (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Look here.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see OTRS ticket. Where is the permission? Taivo (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept the five, per Anatoliy . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:LaHu
[edit]Here are all files, uploaded by user LaHu and not yet presented for deletion:
Two first files are non-trivial logos. The third is a photo about man, who died in 1974, so "own work" is dubious, note the missing date and metadata. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:7 Up 330ml Can, United Kingdom.jpeg
- File:IPad Product Packaging.jpeg
- File:Nexus 4 Product Packaging.jpeg
- File:Nexus 7 Product Packaging.jpeg
Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
no FOP in France
- File:Cinéma le Rex de Villard.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Mosaïque de Vizille.JPG (copyrighted artwork)
- File:Médiathèque de Vizille.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Salle de cinema de Vizille.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Gymnase de Vizille.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Montage Villard 4.jpg (copyrighted sculpture)
- File:Montage Villard 2.jpg (copyrighted sculpture)
- File:Montage Villard de Lans.jpg (copyrighted aculpture)
- File:Local de Radio Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Vélo Métro.JPG (building is de minimis, no details are seen)
- File:Salle évolution sportive.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Les deux ponts.JPG (copyrighted bridge)
- File:Terrain de jeux.JPG (copyrighted buildings)
- File:Ecoles de Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Le Vog.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Stade M. Thorez.JPG (there is very similar stadium in my birthtown, even the handrail is the same, and everything in background is de minimis)
- File:MJC Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:La Poya.JPG (houses are de minimis, because actually no details are seen)
- File:Lycée Prévert.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Zi des vouillands.JPG (not enough artistic for copyright)
- File:Colonne d'info.JPG (copyrighted advertisement)
- File:Espace petite enfance.JPG (copyrighted buildings in foregrounds and backgrounds)
- File:Place du Marché Marcel Cachin.JPG (house in foreground lacks enough details for copyright, in background is de minimis)
- File:Rue du grand veymont.JPG (roadsigns are situated well enough to cover details of house, the house is de minimis)
- File:École paul langevin.JPG (not enough artistic for copyright)
- File:La rue piétonne de Villard.JPG (no house is well seen, I must consider them all de minimis)
- File:Ecole Danièle Casanova.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Crèche des oursons.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Le diamant.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Place de la mairie.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Bibliothèque de Lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Poste de Lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:SEM Restauration Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:SDIS Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Entrée de l'ensemble sportif M. Thorez.JPG (enough creative for copyright, I have never seen such)
- File:Place Louis Maisonnat en 2013.JPG (copyrighted buildings)
- File:Ecole des Balmes Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Halle aux sports de Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Collège G. Philipe Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Maison de retraite La cerisaie.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Bureau de Police de Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Bureau de poste de Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Maison du Temps LIbre de Fontaine.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Bus Semitag.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:La source.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:CCAS.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Église de la nativité.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Avenue du vercors.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Avenue du vercors (2).JPG (copyrighted building right)
- File:Les isles de Fontaine.JPG (panorama of city, all is de minimis)
- File:Entrée du CCMV.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Villard centre-ville.JPG (copyrighted building in foreground, middleground and background)
- File:Gare routière de Villard de Lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Rue pietonne.JPG (copyrighted building left)
- File:Rue piétonne 2.JPG (no architectural details are seen)
- File:Espace Loisir.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Monument JO 1968.JPG (copyrighted sculpture)
- File:Patinoire André Ravix.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Centre aquatique de Villard de lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Télésiège de corrençon.JPG (totem poles are not copyrightable)
- File:Les commerces et l'église.JPG (copyrighted buildings)
- File:Vue sur Villard en juin 2013.JPG (copyrighted buildings, enough well seen)
- File:La Source.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:L'igloo.JPG (copyrighted building, not an igloo)
- File:Le grand Adret de Villard.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Les mélèzes.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Station d'épuration et de compostage.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Coopérative laitière.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:ZA les geymonds.JPG (city panorama, all is de minimis)
- File:Splendid Hotel Villard.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Hameau les cochettes.JPG (copyrighted building left)
- File:Hotel Chritiania.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Le Grand Adret.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Les 3 ours de Villard de Lans.JPG (copyrighted sculptures)
- File:Mairie de Villard (2).JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Espace de loisirs.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Lycée climatique Jean Prévost.JPG (due to overall blurriness no details are seen, so all is de minimis)
- File:Ecole des laiches.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Mairie de Villard de lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Maison de la CCM du Vercors.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:École des laiches.JPG (copyrighted buildings)
- File:Paladru en aout 2.JPG (nothing copyrightable here. The pier is pure rectangle, you can't copyright a rectangle)
- File:Maison de la CC du massif du Vercors.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Falaises du Vercors.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Centre de Loisir de Villard de Lans.JPG (copyrighted building)
- File:Vue de Villard de Lans.JPG (city panorama, all is de minimis)
- File:Centre de Villard de Lans.JPG (copyrighted building left and background)
- File:Cote 2000.jpg (copyrighted building)
- File:Les terrasses de la Caserne de Bonne.JPG (copyrighted building)
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comments with parentheses Taivo (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Several of the images, for example File:Paladru en aout 2.JPG, do not have FOP issues. A few of the buildings look old, although we won't know for certain without identifying the architect. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Please try to identify images without problem and discuss also images that are De minimis. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
About user:Manuguf
[edit]The problem is that all this files are different about derivated work, or not. Some are old buildings, some are buildings with special design, some pictures are de minimis... and some are derivated work of copyrited subjects.
-
Keep no copyrightable building
-
Delete, derivated art work
-
Keep no copyrightable building
-
Keep no copyrightable building
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep de minimis
-
Keep de minimis
-
Delete , because of the copyrighted bear
-
Keep no copyrightable building
-
Keep no copyrightable building -
Keep nothing special about this building, no copyrightable
-
Keep no copyrightable bridge
-
Keep normal buildings, nothing spécial about architcture
-
Keep no copyrightable building, no special design
-
Keep no copyrightable art
-
Keep : a problem ? wich problem ? -
Keep no problem with the building ; about painting : de minimis
-
Keep Is the electric pole was designed by an artist ? -
Keep de minimis for the building, not central in the picture
-
Keep no problem with the map, I'm not sure I can see the mind of the artist in this artwork -
Keep nothing special, no building nor art
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special -
Keep de minimis for the building, not central in the picture -
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special -
Keep no special design for these buildings -
Keep traditional architecture, no special design
-
Keep no special design for this buildings
-
Neutral perhaps designed by an architecte -
Keep traditional architecture, no special design ; perhaps you consider that the "sticks" on the square are artwork :-D -
Keep traditional architecture, no special design
-
Keep traditional architecture, no special design : de minimis for the purple house
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Neutral perhaps designed by an architecte
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep traditional architecture, no special design
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep mass produced buildings, and traditional architecture
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep mass produced buildings, nothing special
-
Keep mass produced buildings, and de minimis -
small frame, but Delete, derivated work of original architecture -
Keep traditional architecture, no special design
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Keep no comment :-( -
Neutral for me it's ok, but perhaps designed by architect
-
Delete simple, but probably copyrited artwork
-
Neutral I don't know if the inside carpentry can be copyrited, or can be seen as technical part
-
Neutral I don't know if the inside carpentry can be copyrited, or can be seen as technical part
-
Keep Totem poles are not copyrightable traditional art :-D -
Neutral doubt about this building, strange "britanny" design...
-
Keep de minimis
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Neutral for me it's ok, but perhaps designed by architect
-
Keep no special design for this buildings
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep de minimis -
Neutral for me it's ok, but perhaps designed by architect
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Keep no special design for this buildings
-
Neutral for me it's ok, but perhaps designed by architect
-
Delete, derivated work of original artwork (not de minimis, the title "3 ours" show that the subject is "central")
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Neutral for me it's ok, but perhaps designed by architect
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep no special design for this buildings
-
Keep : is the design of the umbrella or of the dustbin copyrighted ? :-D -
Delete, derivated work of original architecture
-
Keep no special design for these buildings
-
Keep technical building, no special design
-
Keep de minimis -
Keep traditional architecture, no special design
-
Keep de minimis
-
Keep de minimis
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![192 File:Polikapov I-16 "Per l'Unione Sovietica" Dquadroni in dotazione nel 1941.jpg](#File:Polikapov_I-16_"Per_l'Unione_Sovietica"_Dquadroni_in_dotazione_nel_1941.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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&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§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}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kapara_relief_Gilgamesh_winged_sun.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heart_Attack_Apparel.jpeg){kind=link}
_-_detail.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}
,_placa_comemorativa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_500ad.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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}
![17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/14#c-Nigel_Ish-2013-10-14T17:46:00.000Z-File:Polikapov_I-16_"Per_l'Unione_Sovietica"_Dquadroni_in_dotazione_nel_1941.jpg){kind=link}
![19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/14#c-Jameslwoodward-2013-10-26T19:56:00.000Z-File:Polikapov_I-16_"Per_l'Unione_Sovietica"_Dquadroni_in_dotazione_nel_1941.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){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Many of these picture are ok : too bad that Hedwig in Washington made this mass deletion request without any consideraton about the Commons community :-( ----MGuf (d) 20:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your assessment about File:Colonne d'info.JPG. The photo of the fruit is copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you're right... but it's a small part of the picture, and de minimis allow us to keep the picture on Commons. ----MGuf (d) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The picture focuses on the poster, so the poster can't be de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you're right... but it's a small part of the picture, and de minimis allow us to keep the picture on Commons. ----MGuf (d) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with the numbers 1, 3 and 11 which are architectural objects. They must be deleted too. The Neutral can also be deleted. - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I partially agree with User:Manuguf above, but I don't know whether all originality assessments are correct. In particular, I think that that the city hall photos have to be deleted. I also think that all of the montages have to be deleted as some of the included photos are unfree. All of the included photos in the montages are important to the montage as a whole, so none of them can be de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I've changed my opinion about 1 montage, unfree because of the copyrighted bear. ----MGuf (d) 19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see bears (or similar animals) in all of the montages. Some of the buildings might of course be {{PD-old-70}}, but I have no way to tell. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seen. I keep my opinion. ----MGuf (d) 20:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see bears (or similar animals) in all of the montages. Some of the buildings might of course be {{PD-old-70}}, but I have no way to tell. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I've changed my opinion about 1 montage, unfree because of the copyrighted bear. ----MGuf (d) 19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with MGuf, and about the neutral for File:SDIS Fontaine.JPG I would say Keep because I'm not sure the building is original enough. Jeriby (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I apologize for writing you in French, but I prefer (I am the author and you can translate if you wantː Le cinema (picture 1, movie theater) date de 1948 et son architecte est inconnu (s'il y en a eu un). Pour la mosaïque (photo 2, mosaïc), c'est effectivement une oeuvre d'art récente mais collective et située dans la rue. Pour l'église (picture 47, church), le bâtiment date de 1947, et il n'a aucun intérêt architectural, Pour les ours (Picture 78 statue of the bears), je ne sais pas s'ils sont sous copyright, mais c'est possible. La photo de la Mairie (Picture 79, City hall), c'est un bâtiment banal, non classé datant de 1928. Idem pour la patinoire et la piscine (Pictures 58, Ice Rink et 59 Swining Pool, marquées neutre) et le SDIS (picture 34, building), ces bâtiments sont banaux, ils datent des années 1970 et ne sont pas classés architecturalement. For the other pictures, rien à dire : I am OK. CORLIN 19:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Le fait qu'ils ne soient pas classés n'a rien à voir avec les droits d'auteurs de l'architecte. Il en est de même avec leur caractère utilitaire ou public. Quant à leur banalité, je n'y crois pas (hormis pour la mairie) : par exemple la charpente de la patinoire est une création architecturale originale... - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry but these buildings in Villard-de-lans and Fontaine (in my country) raise no problem of common law, safe law, maybe the swimming pool, the ice rink, the CCMV building and the statues of the bears. I think, It is excessive to apply such a precautionary principle for this pictures (or show me the real reasons in the french laws). It's a pity for Wiki, especially VERTACO38 10:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, most, KEPT some. The argument "Mass-produces buildings do not have copyright" is not true. The argument "Technical buildings do not have copyright" is not true. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely not realistically useful for an educational purpose - Commons is no place for private images High Contrast (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nominator, COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploader has a pile of pictures of herself, alone or with others. Seems like a form of self-advertisement or social use, but COM:NOTSOCIAL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I know almost nothing about uniforms, but whoever smiles to the camera with a cocktail on his hand in a semi-public setting (reception, party?) while wearing one is probably a hight ranking officer in his country. Maybe a minister? That would be in-scope for sure? Pls note that one of the other vanity shots turned out to yield for us a 2012 photo of a former Salvadorean President… Also, the lady herself may be berderline notable. Keep this for now while input from more knowledgeable people is sought. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seeking such. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Salvadorean User:Efegé says that neither is readily a public figure of any kind. The only usefulness left for this I can see is the single example of Salvadorean items under Category:Military uniforms — and to lose it whenever we have better documented media on that subject too. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seeking such. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: While googling for info I thought it was settled, this uploader sharing her name with the Director of the Salvadorean Institute for the Development of Women (ISDEMU), Julia Evelyn Martínez, notable for the 2010 scandal over the Brasília Agreement and the draconian Salvadorean abortion laws — but turns out this is a different person. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: In an ideal world, what Tuvalkin asks might be possible, but on Commons who is going to do it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
While I was reporting the followup given by a Salvadorean user, Jameslwoodward was closing the DR as deletion argueing that followup by a Salvadorean user, while ideally possible, was unlikely. As I had no edit-conflict warning when I saved my contribution (sorry for editing inside the blue area!), I end up looking like a fool, too, for suggesting that a now deleted photo might be useful, for uniqueness, under Category:Military uniforms. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an earlier copy of lower quality here, so the image might have been copied from somewhere. Stefan4 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Anonyme toulousain - Chapiteau de colonne simple , La Descente de croix et la Mise au tombeau - Musée des Augustins - ME 134 (2).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication of author's permission (i.e. Daniel Martin, the photographer). Allegation of {{CC-zero}} contradicts statement on photographer's copyright on the Museum web site. The same would apply to other files in Category:Daniel Martin. Note : some files in Category:Daniel Martin are tagged as {{Self}} and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} which seems unlikely as photographer is Daniel Martin. — Racconish Tk 14:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Restored. Situation is perfectly clear per OTRS ticket. Please check with an OTRS volunteer next time. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
non-free picture, see source Yger (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear copyright status, dos i.e. {{PD-1996}} applies here? JuTa 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Was this supposed to be a request for deletion? Leyo 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear copyright status. Unclear if its PD in origin country Bosnia and Herzegovina and also in US per URAA. JuTa 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/956837 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/05/04/956837.jpg = last modified: 04.05.2009, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") as it was previously published via (examples:)
- http://www.laopiniondemalaga.es/nacional/2009/03/04/lopez-pnv-basta-amenazas-pais/241968.html (04.03.2009) = http://fotos01.laopiniondemalaga.es/2009/03/04/646x260/2009-03-11_IMG_2009-03-04_00:17:12_x031na01-1.jpg (given credits to "EFE" + full exif-info available: "(...) Copyrights: EFE/LUIS TEJIDO"
- http://hemeroteca.abcdesevilla.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/sevilla/abc.sevilla/2009/03/04/048.html (04.03.2009) = .pdf (download, if this is not working: click at "DESCAREGAR ESTA PÁGINA EN PDF"), given credits to "EFE".
"EFE" indicates to en:EFE, a Spanish international news agency. Gunnex (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, so many problems!
Deleted -FASTILY 01:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/720254 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/30/720254.jpg = last modified: 30.11.2007, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/315428/0/rey/comedia/esther/, posterior published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/444203/0/fergo/vareadora/olivo/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/01/19/919816.jpg and tagged with "(...) en una imagen de archivo.") as it was previously published via (examples)
- http://www.lastfm.es/music/Nuria+Ferg%C3%B3/+images/554638 (added by Ark_86 on 22.06.2007, inverted horizontally, exif available). The original frame is most likely http://www.lastfm.es/music/Nuria+Ferg%C3%B3/+images/554629. Might be the original...
- http://operaciontriunfo.blogia.com/2007/060605-nuria-fergo-apoya-la-candidatura-de-granada.php (06.06.2007) = http://operaciontriunfo.blogia.com/upload/20070606100953-nurasp.jpg (last modified: 06.06.2007, see also file path).
Via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/227653/0/Nuria/Fergo/Palma/ (26.04.2007, seven month earlier) a thumbnail is published = http://www.20minutos.es/data/img/2007/04/26/587838.jpg. This file was most likely grabbed from a photohooting to promote the new album "Añoranzas", launched on 23.04.2007. One day later, on 27.04.2007, a blog republished a screenshot of something like a hotsite created for the album via http://siempreporypararosa.blogcindario.com/2007/04/04366-nuevo-disco-de-nuria-fergo-ya-a-la-venta-anoranzas.html = http://fotos.subefotos.com/18bdbb128c893ad96d7ab4e72a34cd8ao.jpg (see 1st image at column).
Related (regarding the tag "(...) en una imagen de archivo."):
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercedes Milá3.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ritabarbera.jpg Gunnex (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, so many problems!
Deleted -FASTILY 01:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/763595 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/02/13/763595.jpg = last modified: 13.02.2008, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/348493/0/mario/picazo/recuperado/) as it was previously published (although watermarked) via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/leo-segarra-patxi-salinas-karmele-marchante-miriam-sanchez-resto-concursantes-supervivientes-2008/ (23.01.2008) = http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/2900/2928.jpg (last modified: 23.01.2008, here credited with "Carlos Serrano"). Gunnex (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. So many "20 Minutes" images, it's probably taken 100s of hours to clean them all out. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Uploaded with Mobile/iOS
[edit]Low quality. Out of scope.
Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the highest quality here, -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator and Cirt. COM:OMGAPENIS aka COM:NOTCENSORED "If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose." Fail! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
несвободный файл ныне живущего, выдан за собственную работу 2009 года kosun (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Marker of unknown age & author. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are thousands of images of historical markers on WikiCommons. This one has only the USAF logo (which was created by US Goverment) and some words. I'm not sure that just words (even in bronze) are copyrightable. A website I found said that "On July 5, 2002 the Fort Myers Historical Museum; Experimental Aircraft Association, Florida Warbirds, Squadron 24; Lee County Board of Commissioners; Leadership Lee County and LCMCD celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Buckingham Army Air Field. ... A historical marker commemorating the former Buckingham Army Air Field was erected at the intersection of Gunnery Boulevard and Sunset Road." [27] Site includes photo of marker (not the same one as here). It seems to me that a very loose standard is held here for "LOGOS" as far as words and lines and a much harsher standard is held for public historical signs. I am not sure why, any explanation would be most helpful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, text is definitely copyrightable, and this is quite a long text. The logo is {{PD-USGov}} (and {{PD-ineligible}}), but it isn't known who the author of the sign is. The website you linked to probably depends on fair use, something which we don't accept on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Come on Ellin -- we first met over a discussion of a marker. Literary works -- text -- were the first subject of copyright and the only one mentioned in the Constitution. There can be no question that this sign could have a copyright. There are two possibilities for keeping it. One is that it was erected by the Federal government. I think that's unlikely, because the Feds usually say that they did it. The other is that it is pre-1989 -- that's much more likely, as it looks like an older style sign, but the paint is good, so maybe it isn't that old.
- As for the other-things-exist part of this, there are three factors. The first is that a lot of this kind of sign are Federal, and therefore PD. The second is that a lot of them predate 1989 and are therefore usually PD-no-notice. The third factor is that no one has bothered to go through the signs and sort out the post-1989, non-Federal ones and hang {{Delete}} tags on them, so yes, we have a lot of signs here that ought to be deleted. That's a reason to expedite deletions of them, not object to them on other-things-exist grounds.
- I'm not going to close this as deleted because I'd like to see if anyone can shed any light on the age of this style of sign in Florida. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that a copyright notice only was needed on published copies, and this is only a published copy of the marker if the marker was set up before 1978. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which explains the change of the meaning of the word "publication" in 1978. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been over a month. Copyright status is still unclear FASTILY 10:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Marker of unknown age & author. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are thousands of images of historical markers on WikiCommons. This one has only the USAF logo (which was created by US Goverment) and some words. I'm not sure that just words (even in bronze) are copyrightable. A website I found said that "On July 5, 2002 the Fort Myers Historical Museum; Experimental Aircraft Association, Florida Warbirds, Squadron 24; Lee County Board of Commissioners; Leadership Lee County and LCMCD celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Buckingham Army Air Field. ... A historical marker commemorating the former Buckingham Army Air Field was erected at the intersection of Gunnery Boulevard and Sunset Road." [28] Site includes photo of marker (not the same one as here). It seems to me that a very loose standard is held here for "LOGOS" as far as words and lines and a much harsher standard is held for public historical signs. I am not sure why, any explanation would be most helpful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, text is definitely copyrightable, and this is quite a long text. The logo is {{PD-USGov}} (and {{PD-ineligible}}), but it isn't known who the author of the sign is. The website you linked to probably depends on fair use, something which we don't accept on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Come on Ellin -- we first met over a discussion of a marker. Literary works -- text -- were the first subject of copyright and the only one mentioned in the Constitution. There can be no question that this sign could have a copyright. There are two possibilities for keeping it. One is that it was erected by the Federal government. I think that's unlikely, because the Feds usually say that they did it. The other is that it is pre-1989 -- that's much more likely, as it looks like an older style sign, but the paint is good, so maybe it isn't that old.
- As for the other-things-exist part of this, there are three factors. The first is that a lot of this kind of sign are Federal, and therefore PD. The second is that a lot of them predate 1989 and are therefore usually PD-no-notice. The third factor is that no one has bothered to go through the signs and sort out the post-1989, non-Federal ones and hang {{Delete}} tags on them, so yes, we have a lot of signs here that ought to be deleted. That's a reason to expedite deletions of them, not object to them on other-things-exist grounds.
- I'm not going to close this as deleted because I'd like to see if anyone can shed any light on the age of this style of sign in Florida. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that a copyright notice only was needed on published copies, and this is only a published copy of the marker if the marker was set up before 1978. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which explains the change of the meaning of the word "publication" in 1978. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been over a month. Copyright status is still unclear FASTILY 10:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
несвободный файл ныне живущего, выдан за собственную работу 2009 года kosun (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Kathisma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: galero and fiocchi are a copy/paste of the drawings of Marco Foppoli (http://www.marcofoppoli.com/), published with the mention "© Copyright 2003 Marco Foppoli, tutti i diritti riservati. Problem already known with other files, see File:CoA Ascanio Sforza (1455-1505).svg. I convert to a regular DR, as the speedy deletion request doesn't note what elements have been copied. Dereckson (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to be a self-made SVG with all elements from pre-existing Commons content. Fry1989 eh? 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. It has been indeed made of preexisting commons content, and this content has precisely been removed as copyvio after this complain of Marco Foppoli : first topic on the top of the page. Kathisma (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see any proof this is a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- clearer ? Kathisma (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- While the SVG is based off that image, there are clear differences in the actual design. Fry1989 eh? 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The differences are only because of symmetry, technical limitations and the different colorization style. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's exactly the same. And it's under copyright. Mr Foppoli was a really friendly guy and one of my friends, but be sure if I find this he can engage lawsuit. And if you don't delete this file it will be a pleasure for me to inform him! Mathieu C. (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not exactly the same. It's close but it is not a duplicate of the original. Fry1989 eh? 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's the same. And if we don't want to understand and accept that (Katepanomegas himself says he use this to make the drawing). So I write to Marco Foppoli with a link to this page and explain you have no consideration for his copyright! Maybe he don't really like this! Mathieu C. (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- While the SVG is based off that image, there are clear differences in the actual design. Fry1989 eh? 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- clearer ? Kathisma (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see any proof this is a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I had news of this discussion from Mr. Chaine and I thanks him. I see an obvious digital "copy and paste" from my style for galeros and tassels. I don't understand why this designer Kathisma - and I haven't the pleasure to know his real personal name - don't work with personal efforts to produce HIS original heraldic style, but simply he takes parts of works and style of others to "copy and paste", presenting that as "original" work in his digital renditions of arms. Sorry, I don't know wikipedia rules, I don't know wikipedia world so I am unable to know exactely what require. But no I don't like that way to do. To see copied the result of my original work and efforts is not pleasant. I think could be correct and honest to remember "this rendition is inspired to the original work of mr. xy". Would it be right to change this rendition in the parts copied from my work of course. Then do as you like folks. Regards, Marco Foppoli.
My great apologies to Kathisma, I see HE want delete the file in the violation of my copyright. Ufff... Wikipedia is a complicate world. Please excuse me Kathisma. I have see HIS picture of comparation between my original artork and the copy of rendition "created" by user FRY 1989. Thank you. From this picture I see Is not a simply "inspiration" to my style but a real copy of an artwork. I require to delete or change this file. If not I will inform me about legal terms to apply to Wikipedia and user Fry 1989 for legal damages in violation of my copyright. Marco Foppoli
- Can you even read? I didn't make the image, I'm simply voting that it should stay. Also Wikimedia doesn't like legal threats, your IP has been reported for that offence. Fry1989 eh? 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Dear Sir I don't know your real name, you are simply a "sigla", I don't know the wikipedia customs and so on, I can only see that this picture contain an evident part of an artwork of mine protected by copyright. Are you offenced for that? Very courious. I am very glad you have not make the "copy and paste". To see the result of my work used in this way is not so nice. Thank you.
- It is claimed that the hat of this image infringes the copyright of [29]. The hat is a w:galero, a kind of hat worn by cardinals and included in their coat of arms. You can find several images of these hats in the Wikipedia article: one photo of a cardinal and three drawings of coats of arms. In a coat of arms for a cardinal, you see the upper part of the galero (the one which sits on the cardinal's head) at the top, as mandated by the w:blazon. This is not something which Foppoli or the uploader can change. On Foppolo's image, I see straight diagonal lines between the middle and the bottom of the top, whereas the uploader's image shows curves. Both images show reflexions, but the reflexions are drawn differently and only show ordinary behaviour of light. I do not think that one can say that any of the drawings of the hat are derivative works of one another or that any copyright is infringed by these drawings; rather, the drawings seem to be independent creations based on a real galero and light, none of which is subject to copyright.
![[29]](http://www.marcofoppoli.com/images/lavori/279.jpg){kind=link}
- Foppoli also complains about the tassels which are attached to and hanging from the hat. In particular, he shows two tassels here. I do not agree that the drawings are the same; for example, Foppoli's drawing has sharper edges, whereas the uploader's drawing has more rounded edges. I think that the drawings of the tassels are independent creations based on a real tassel.
- I do not see any copyright violation here, so I think that it would be safe to Keep the file. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are many alternative depictions of galero's in heraldry. Foppoli has a very distinctive style. This is a very clear trace, and rounding the edges or simplifying the lighting doesn't change that. Furthermore, the uploader did not design these elements. They were copied from files that have since been deleted, which is probably why this upload doesn't mention any sources (and thus violates the Creative Commons licenses of other elements as well.) This was the original deletion request. This needs to be deleted as quickly as possible. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: per above. This is probably okay for Commons FASTILY 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Or perhaps not -FASTILY 00:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks like all of the files in the Flickr stream contain the following text as part of the file description (and did so on the date they were transferred here): "© All rights are reserved, please do not use my photos without my permission. Thanks !" That clearly contradicts the stated licensing terms and is an obvious indication that the author does not wish to release the files under a free license. This set should never have been transferred to Commons.
- File:AZAMARA JOURNEY (7403978270).jpg
- File:BUGSIER 17 (7427476684).jpg
- File:CAP SAN RAPHAEL (7263522732).jpg
- File:Crew members of TAUCHER O.WULF 3 (7420874336).jpg
- File:Crew members of tug TAUCHER O.WULF 3 (7420985602).jpg
- File:Crew members of tug TAUCHER O.WULF 3 (7421093484).jpg
- File:Crew members of tugboat TAUCHER O.WULF 3 (7421074812).jpg
- File:DOR 9 - SOLEA & HERMANN HELMS (7227323828).jpg
- File:DOR 9 - SOLEA (7227304240).jpg
- File:EMPIRE (7263044756).jpg
- File:FED 2 - SEESTERN (7227951988).jpg
- File:FED 4 - CHRISTINE (7228580462).jpg
- File:FINNSUN.jpg
- File:Fischereigeschirr Fishing gear (7413341302).jpg
- File:GUDRUN MAERSK (7385321668).jpg
- File:GUDRUN MAERSK near Cuxhaven (7385311148).jpg
- File:HBK 103 LUISE bei einer Demonstration gegen die neue Elbvertiefung (7227120688).jpg
- File:HBK 103 LUISE bei einer Demonstration gegen die neue Elbvertiefung (7227130084).jpg
- File:Helgoländer Börteboot (Rudder) FRAUKE (7421112054).jpg
- File:Krabbenkutter auf der Elbe Shrimper on the Elbe River (7227150758).jpg
- File:MAERSK ALGOL (5692883715).jpg
- File:MAERSK EDINBURGH near Cuxhaven.jpg
- File:MAERSK SAIGON - IMO 9303534 (4948614041).jpg
- File:MAERSK SAIGON auf der Elbe (4949196610).jpg
- File:Mit meinen Freunden Käpt´n Manny und Käpt`n Eberhard auf Bootstour (7228629354).jpg
- File:PEL 32 TÜMMLER (7227256262).jpg
- File:PEL 33 - COLUMBUS (7227055470).jpg
- File:SD 33 - MARLIES (7227286690).jpg
- File:Shrimper on the Elbe River near Cuxhaven (7227205236).jpg
- File:ST 18 - ATLANTIK (7228700914).jpg
- File:ST 26 - WEGA II (7228033994).jpg
- File:ST 26 - WEGA II (7228861976).jpg
- File:SU.3 THEODOR STORM (7228055924).jpg
- File:SW 4 - HARTJE (7227349148).jpg
- File:SW1 - ELTJE LOODEN (7227354920).jpg
- File:SW1- ELTJE LOODEN & PEL 32 - TÜMMLER (7227367680).jpg
- File:SW1-ELTJE LOODEN (7227107604).jpg
- File:TAUCHER O. WULF 3 (7421303298).jpg
- File:TAUCHER O.WULF 3 with two LIEBHERR - Mobile Harbour Cranes for Antwerp (7242627562).jpg
- File:Tonnenleger TRITON (7409034540).jpg
- File:Trapped in a net ... (7414994474).jpg
- File:TRITON (7409024974).jpg
- File:WIND EXPRESS (7421189028).jpg
- File:WIND EXPRESS just before a thunderstorm (7421160446).jpg
- File:Workboat MARTIN (6987205504).jpg
- File:WRE 1 - APOLLO & PEL 32 - TÜMMLER (7227400698).jpg
- File:WRE 1 APOLLO (7227383318).jpg
- File:WRE 9- NEPTUN at a demonstration against the new deepening of the Elbe River (7227410810).jpg
- File:WS 61 - Wasserschutz-Polizei Hamburg (7227421528).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.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}
_FRAUKE_(7421112054).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}
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is relatively common for people to have (C) ARR comments on their Flickr photos, only for them to later relicence their photos under a CC licence. This is what has occured in this instance, so the changing of the licence overrides their previous comments. russavia (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to a statement to that effect (or an OTRS ticket)? And if that's really the case, then the contradictory statements should be removed from the file descriptions (at least on Commons, preferably on Flickr as well, but if that's not possible, there should be a note in the permission field of the information template here on Commons). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- LX, am I missing something here? I have looked at several of these and found the {{Flickrreview}} tag on them showing that they had a free license when uploaded. You surely saw the tag. I know you have been around here long enough to understand it, so I don't understand why you started this DR. Certainly the image description might best be cleaned up, but the tag trumps the description. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Our practice so far [comments on each by JLW]
- [30] -- off point, deleted for other (silly) reasons
- [31] -- off point, not from Flickr and had specific non-CC restrictions
- [32] -- off point, as above -- 17,000 words of discussion!
- [33] -- not quite on point, as it is not from Flickr, but it's my deletion, two years ago. This and the next one are closest to the mark, as the watermarks are more or less the same words as the ones we are discussing here. I would keep it today, on the grounds stated below.
- [34] -- same guy as above.
- [35] -- off point. "Editorial use only" does contradict CC-BY in a way that ARR and (c) do not.
- [36] -- off point, also "editorial use only"
- [37] -- off point, not Flickr -- CC-BY-ND clearly contradicts CC-BY-SA, but even here, the rules of construction would allow us to keep it
- [38] -- another "editorial use only"
- [39] -- not a Flickr image, but I would argue that since the CC license gives permission, there's no problem. Also there may be a language problem here.
- [40] -- off point, no CC license exists on source site and there's no evidence it ever did. This was just a misguided uploader.
- has been to delete files where the description contains additional terms which contradict the licensing terms. The rationale for this is that a statement written in the person's own words is more likely to indicate their real intent than their selection of an option from a list of license names. We cannot in good faith rely on a license if there is a clear indication that the would-be licensor never actually intended to grant that license. In this case, russavia asserts a different chronology (namely that the licenses were issued after the descriptions were written), which would be relevant, but we need some sort of confirmation of that. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Our practice so far [comments on each by JLW]
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Habitable_Moon_1.0.1.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kristiansand_Gamle_Varoddbrua_1956_auf_der_Varodd-Br%C3%BCcke_L_618_m_Spannweite_337_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN1547.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Kristiansand_Gamle_Varoddbrua_1956_auf_der_Varodd-Brücke_L_618_m_Spannweite_337_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN1547.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:City_Glow.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Frankurt.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Italdesign_Maserati_BOOMERANG_(2712036234).jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Michael_Wilbon_2010.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Amanita_flavoconia%22,_a_poisonous_yellow_mushroom.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Politkovskaya_blaues_sofa_2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Huachinantla.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Begum_Parveen_Sultana.jpg){kind=link}
- I looked at a random sample of five of the images and found a CC-BY license on all. I don't see a problem here -- it is not unusual to have an explicit copyright notice on files that are licensed CC-BY -- after all, the copyright still exists and is the way that the author can enforce his or her right to proper attribution. He reserves all rights, also fair enough -- he can certainly reserve all the rights in the boiler plate words that are common with a copyright notice and then grant some of them, as the CC license does. Finally, he says "please do not use my photos without my permission" -- OK again, a CC-BY license is permission. None of this contradicts a CC-BY license in the way that "editorial use only" or specific instructions on placement of credits does.
- The rules of construction speak directly to this point. In contract law, ambiguity is construed against the drafter. In his words and choice of license on his Flickr page, Cuxclipper has written a contract which you believe is ambiguous. I am not sure that is correct, but even if it is correct, then the ambiguity must be construed in favor of those who benefit from the contract -- Commons users -- and not in favor of Cuxclipper.
- A small additional point -- he chose a CC-BY license. That's unusual -- most freely licensed Flickr images are CC-BY-SA. I think this shows that he spent at least a little time considering what license to apply. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright mark is indeed not a problem, as that in no way contradicts the license. Indeed, the license relies on copyright to be enforceable. Reserving all rights, however, is contradictory to the license, as that includes reserving the right to control distribution. This is why the phrase some rights reserved is used instead in connection with CC-licensed works. It's also important to note that copyright licenses are not contracts. There is no negotiation, offer, acceptance or consideration in the sense of contract law. A CC license is merely a one-way conditional permission to do things that would otherwise constitute a breach of copyright. Clearly, one cannot rely on such a permission unless it is clear and unambiguous. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The license itself is not a contract, as your cite correctly points out -- I didn't say that it was. However, the terms of its donation are a contract -- a deed of gift, to be technical. The rules of construction apply to such things just as much as they do to an ordinary commercial contract. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how you distinguish between the "license itself" and its terms, and I still don't believe that contract law is involved here, but I'm not a lawyer. (I've only taken a couple of courses as part of a business degree.) Legal issues aside, I think we have a moral obligation not to rely on licenses that the licensor obviously never intended to issue. You'll note that all the photos in the photostream uploaded after File:BUGSIER 17 (7427476684).jpg (on 2012-06-23) have "© All Rights Reserved" not only in the caption, but also as the selected license (or lack thereof, rather). To me, that makes it clear that there was never any intent to release these photos under a free license. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. I'm not really seeing the problem here honestly. It looks like the files were orignally non-free, but then the copyright holder decided to release them with a CC license. FASTILY 07:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)