Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_Siena.jpg){kind=link}
_neue_Abkürzung_2013-10-18_20-10.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![108 File:Aku "arrow d'valens".jpg](#File:Aku_"arrow_d'valens".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Unfree logo art 178.2.54.41 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work, no evidence of permission from artist darkweasel94 18:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Poor quality, no forseeable educational use. Brainy J (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This is plain text. Can be easily (and advantageously) replaced with: « [(η⁵−C₅H₅)Mo(CO)₃]₂ ↔ [(η⁵−C₅H₅)Mo(CO)₂]₂ + 2CO 1960, 1915 cm⁻¹ 1889, 1859 cm⁻¹ » -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. McZusatz (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Missed from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Etcengineer Motopark (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy delete. Obviously not own work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I propose the deletion because it has a wrong name. It has been replaced by the correct file. I am sorry Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
_Siena.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Siena.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I propose the deletion because it has a wrong name. It has been replaced by the correct file Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
_Siena.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
_Siena.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo, serves no purpose on Commons. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Bigorre inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom McZusatz (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Would meet COM:TOO#United Kingdom which has a very low threshold. russavia (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom McZusatz (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
book cover; copyvio Drakosh (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
fictionnal + not in use => out of scope Kathisma (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Brainy J (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
User's only contribution; at time of writing only used at his English Wikipedia user page which is a blatant fake article (and his only WP contribution) that is likely to have been speedied by the time this nomination closes. Ubcule (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete It might be worth going through Special:ListFiles/ضياء_الدراجي, too. --Leyo 22:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dominic as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|File:Photograph of Dwight D. Eisenhower - NARA - 518138.jpg
I'm not so sure, the smaller one is sharper than the other. Pleclown (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that; I'm trying to only nominate exact duplicates. But now that you've nominated it, I think a slightly sharpened thumbnail-sized version is far inferior to the original scan image, now that we have it. Alterations can be made to the original if necessary. Delete Dominic (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per last comment McZusatz (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Really published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license? High Contrast (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no McZusatz (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely false claim of authorship, buggy file desc. page, orphaned. Leyo 21:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope McZusatz (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a photo of replica, see File:Maquette de Gaia salon du Bourget 2013 DSC 0191.JPG and this vague art is out of scope. -- Akim Dubrow (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a not-so-good replication of this non-free file, and I cannot see the point to keep it while we have a nice free photo File:Maquette de Gaia salon du Bourget 2013 DSC 0191.JPG. --Melirius (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per comments McZusatz (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree
Gelehrter11
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What is this meant to be and what purpose does it serve? I think the name says that it's "upside down???" (user's own question marks!) but that's not useful. Ubcule (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unused file out of com:scope. McZusatz (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Tourist photo. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirect not needed User:Mlpearc/Template:Font 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear copyright status for "left hand image". Brokn source and bogus {{PD-author}} usage. JuTa 20:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although my previous account, "Before My Ken", is listed as the uploader of this image, I'm fairly certain that I only combined two existing Commons images, and copied over the information from their two pages. The left hand image seems now not to be here, so I assume it has been deleted. If that's indeed the case, then there's no reason why this composite shouldn't be deleted as well, since none of the links given in its information are working, and the only version of the image I can find via a Google search is from a copyrighted page (http://www.evi.com/q/facts_about__kerim_kerimov). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per last comment McZusatz (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
double image in Category:Vladislava Krstić --Intermedichbo (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no duplicate found McZusatz (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because it is a free image from Flickr doesn't mean it serves a purpose on Commons. Not educational, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism / Insults against french contributor Mattho69 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Marsan inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see anything in the original. Even increasing the brightness only shows faint sky. A better image of the same subject by the same photographer is here. I'd appreciate some opinion- thank you. Ubcule (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: unused low quality file McZusatz (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, serves no purpose on Commons. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is not copyright owner Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission McZusatz (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unclear that user owns rights or permission to this image. Ubcule (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
_neue_Abk%C3%BCrzung_2013-10-18_20-10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_neue_Abk%C3%BCrzung_2013-10-18_20-10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Maybe not really usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
_neue_Abkürzung_2013-10-18_20-10.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
_neue_Abkürzung_2013-10-18_20-10.jpg){kind=link}
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image Ubcule (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
oo-000oiop0--0op[= 76.208.66.109 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree, Keep, this is not a reason; it is garbage and this appears to be a bot posting spurious requests. Rfc1394 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: McZusatz (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image (*was* used in sandbox article at English Wikipedia; I removed that as it had been dormant for a long time) Ubcule (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Brainy J (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image Ubcule (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very low quality (text illegible) reproduction of subject we already have sufficient better copies of. Also possible copyvio. Ubcule (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Book cover; copyvio Drakosh (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
book cover; copyvio Drakosh (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Evillasenor1 (talk · contribs) 1
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope. This is not Facebook. Possibly bullying or revenge uploads considering the personal contact info. Maybe should be speedy delete...
- Link to images removed. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Could an admin please speedy delete all uploads from the same uploader (and ban them, while we are at it)? All uploads are either borderline or blatant harassment. GermanJoe (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: These were taken from a social media site, these have no scope and to err on the side of caution, I've deleted the images and will hide the file names from public view. Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LaberrhabarberPF (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artworks and/or wallpaper. Out of scope.
- File:Hartz IV kills the soulHDRLightPatch.png
- File:Hartz IV kills the soul.png
- File:Hartz IV kills the soulHDR.png
- File:Grundeinkommen.png
- File:Hartz-IV.png
Ubcule (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom McZusatz (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leo Neurona 85 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope McZusatz (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 11.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 10.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 09.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 08.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 07.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 06.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 04.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 05.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 01.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 02.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 03.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal vanity photos. This is not Facebook. Out of scope.
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 04.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 01.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward 02.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 20.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 19.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 18.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 17.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 11.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 09.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 10.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 16.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 13.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 14.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 15.jpg
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 12.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 08.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 07.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 05.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 04.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 22.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 03.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 23.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 02.JPG
- File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 01.JPG
- File:Salman Haider 02.JPG
- File:Salman Haider 01.JPG
- File:Throw Light On Luv.jpg 05.tif
- File:Throw Light On Luv.jpg 07.tif
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sharmila kandee (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not your free webhost. Images in these uploads include copyvios (the lays and m&m packets), other low quality images with watermarks taking up a huge part of the images, and self-made artworks.
- File:Lays chilli by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-40.jpg
- File:M&mby sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-39.jpg
- File:Sunset 4 by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-38.jpg
- File:Sunset 3 by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-36.jpg
- File:Sunset 2 by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-32.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's photography 14 2013-10-18 16-31.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's photography 13 2013-10-18 16-30.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's photography 12 2013-10-18 16-29.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's photography 11 2013-10-18 16-28.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee 's photography 10 2013-10-18 16-27.jpg
- File:Sun in the hand by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-26.jpg
- File:Baskin robbins choco by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-25.jpg
- File:Sunset 1 by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-23.jpg
- File:Beach and sandy legs 2013-10-18 16-22.jpg
- File:Half moon beach - dammam,saudi arabia by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-21.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's car collection 2013-10-18 16-20.jpg
- File:Bahrain bridge by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-18.jpg
- File:Galaxy s4 by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-16.jpg
- File:Riyadh city by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-11.jpg
- File:Jeep compass interior 2013-10-18 16-10.jpg
- File:Kingdom tower by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 16-09.jpg
- File:Kingdom tower by sharmila kandee 2013-10-18 15-52.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's photography 2013-09-03 10-36.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's art work 1 2013-09-03 10-34.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's collage work on the frog prince 2013-09-03 10-32.jpg
- File:Sharmila Kandee 's portrait 1 2013-09-03 10-30.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's portrait 3 2013-09-03 10-26.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's modern art 2013-09-03 10-25.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's innovation on a heart 2013-09-02 10-08.jpg
- File:Sharmila kandee's art work on an imaginary girl 2013-09-02 10-06.jpg
russavia (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom McZusatz (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Although it may be an original composition, a tineye search suggests that the components are copyrighted images, so the derivative work is not sufficiently free. C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by January. Yann (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Brainy J (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear copyright situation of pictures in the file Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear copyright situation of pictures in the file KDFernandez (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image outside Commons:Scope: a map of where User:Monocletophat123 has been. No educational purpose. GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence, that the uploader has the rights to publish the file under a free license. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by HJ Mitchell. Yann (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
File:I am currently looking for clients - I am a petite 18 year old - I will give you an hour of pleasure for 100 dollars- It doesn't matter if you are married or have a girlfriend I am not the Jelous type - My ph 2013-10-16 18-11.jpeg
[edit]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Possibly bullying or revenge upload considering uploader's other images, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Evillasenor1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Gbawden. Yann (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope and probably not own work Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Bild wird nicht verwendet. MForth (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No such file. Yann (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
And all photos by user in Category:Media needing categories as of 28 March 2013, Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by McZusatz. Yann (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
gd dg djhbd 89.146.151.232 11:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unused file low resolution. com:PCP McZusatz (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unused file. Low resolution. superseded by File:Nederlands verkeersbord F4.svg McZusatz (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unused file. Low resolution. superseded by File:Nederlands verkeersbord F2.svg McZusatz (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal portrait. Danrok (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused self-portrait. Danrok (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
personal party photo. Danrok (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal portrait. Danrok (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Holiday snap? Danrok (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Doubt its own work with that logo Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal portrait, vanity photo. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Danrok (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Rsberzerker (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Rsberzerker (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism on Wikipedia Technopat (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
![15:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/18#c-EugeneZelenko-2013-10-18T15:14:00.000Z-File:Aku_"arrow_d'valens".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
![12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/18#c-Yann-2013-10-25T12:41:00.000Z-File:Aku_"arrow_d'valens".jpg){kind=link}
erreur de ma part Blankenfeld (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
File:The preferred design concept for the Eisenhower Memorial, viewed from Independence Avenue, looking south..jpg
[edit]
This is similar (though not identical) to the photo at http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/from_driehaus_to_our_house (http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/images/uploads/5_-_Eisenhower_Memorial_Aerial_from_across_Independence_Ave_%28Courtesy_of_Gehry_Partners,_LLP,_2012.jpg), which is credited to "Courtesy of Gehry Partners, LLP". It's probably the same model (or a new iteration thereof). Even if the uploader took the photo, the model itself is copyrighted, and since Gehry Partners are not U.S. government employees, it's not public domain. Finally, judging by Commons:Freedom of Panorama, FOP does not apply to models of architecture in the U.S. Superm401 - Talk 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenhower Memorial The President & The General Sculptures.jpg. Superm401 - Talk 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
From [1], which says "provided by the Eisenhower Memorial Commission". Thus, the "Own work" claim is false. There is no evidence this is public domain, either. It was likely created by Gehry Partners, the architecture firm. Superm401 - Talk 00:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The preferred design concept for the Eisenhower Memorial, viewed from Independence Avenue, looking south..jpg. Superm401 - Talk 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple minor changes from the Washington Times one in the background; other than that it's identical. Superm401 - Talk 00:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
not own work, no license Sealle (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mingle is not a free and open source web application. Per Commons:Screenshots, I believe this pass the threshold of originalty required to be copyrightable. Permission to have this file reused under a free license (including commercial usage) should be sought from copyright holder ThroughtWorks (probably doable) or this file cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
impossible to make out. found better image, now herre at File:Mémoires d'un éléphant blanc. Illustrations par alfons Mucha, Judith Gautier 2.jpg Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
impossible to make out, found better image, now here at File:Mémoires d'un éléphant blanc. Illustrations par alfons Mucha, Judith Gautier.jpg Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Beauvaisis inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Beauvaisis inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unused file. Superseded by File:Hungaroring.svg McZusatz (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Very different layout and colors. May be useful. Supercession is not generally a reason to delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
this file is a commercial picture AmisDeLaThermique (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may or may not be, but it has no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
this file is a commercial picture AmisDeLaThermique (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may or may not be, but it has no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
this file is a commercial picture AmisDeLaThermique (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may or may not be, but it has no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
this file is a commercial picture AmisDeLaThermique (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may or may not be, but it has no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized image. While of good quality, we have plenty of dog pictures. Rsberzerker (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not limited in size, if the image can be useful, why not keep it?--Strainu (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Image is from here and there is no mention of licensing at all. This image should probably have COM:OTRS or be deleted unless the caption at its original location be amended to show CC licensing. NOTE: Uploader has many other files that may also require deletions. Liamdavies (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
this file is a commercial picture AmisDeLaThermique (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That may or may not be, but it has no permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre page with images of a church, not the subject Villa La Roche. Actual images of Villa La Roche are regularly deleted from Commons as the building is in France, designed by Le Corbusier and there is no FOP. Therefore there is no need for a gallery, at least until 2037. ELEKHHT 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Relief seems to be recent work and thereby still copyrighted. As Russia regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works, we need a permission from the sculptor or the image needs to go. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Drawing resembles (likely intentionally) the Disney character Donald Duck and immediate source website is unfree[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Drawing resembles (likely intentionally) the Disney character Goofy and immediate source website is unfree[3]. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of license, link is dead, and there is no archive (internet archive wayback machine). Delete per COM:PRP. Liamdavies (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but sculptor Arsene Matton died only in 1953, whereby his works are copyrighted til 2023. Regrettably, Belgium has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works. Image may be undeleted on January 1, 2024. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted, it's now 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Royal Museum for Central Africa Hall Arsene Matton Sculpture La Belgique apportant la civilisation au Congo.jpg
[edit]
Sorry, but sculptor Arsene Matton died only in 1953, whereby his works are copyrighted til 2023. Regrettably, Belgium has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works. Image may be undeleted on January 1, 2024. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted It is now 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Royal Museum for Central Africa Hall Arsene Matton Sculpture La Belgique apportant la sécurité au Congo.jpg
[edit]
Sorry, but sculptor Arsene Matton died only in 1953, whereby his works are copyrighted til 2023. Regrettably, Belgium has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works. Image may be undeleted on January 1, 2024. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted It is now 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but the sculptors are both living, whereby their works are still copyrighted. Regrettably, Luxembourg has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works. So, either we get a permission from the sculptors or the image needs to be deleted. -–Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the the linked sculptor/architect Rob Krier is living, whereby his works are still copyrighted. Regrettably, Luxembourg has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for public works. –- Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
As all images in Category:Cité judiciaire, Luxembourg may have the same problem, I recommend someone interested to try to get a permission from Rob Krier. --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Ne convient plus esthétiquement 2A01:E35:2E9D:B6C0:804D:48E1:B15E:A39B 14:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Luxembourg -VT98Fan (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The photograph shows the Information Center of the European Union. The entrance is free. Advertisements cannot be read clearly, even if you chose the full size formate. Or should the number plates of the cars be pixeled away? --Corradox (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The building is rather new. The architect might claim that it is one of his masterpieces that must not be photographed for public purposes without his permission. There is no evidence that such a permission has been summitted. --91.96.25.199 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: 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 Luxembourg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The text reads "temporäre Installation"/"temporary installation". If this is a temporary installation, it is not covered by freedom of panorama; the text is certainly copyrightable. darkweasel94 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Es sah für mich nicht temporär aus. Wenn es so ist, fällt es natürlich auch in Österreich nicht unter die Panoramafreiheit, das stimmt. Den Text habe ich nur als Hilfsmittel fotografiert, um die nebenstehenden Bilder zu beschreiben. Wir sollten mal Benutzer aus Wien fragen? --Ralf Roleček 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC) PS: "temporär" bedeutet "nicht auf Lebenszeit", Eisskulpturen, die am nächsten Tag wegtauen, fallen unter Panoramafreiheit.
- Ich bin aus Wien, habe das allerdings noch nicht gesehen (kann aber einmal hinfahren). Aber wenn explizit dort steht, dass es vom 15. Mai bis zum 10. November dort steht, ist es wohl ziemlich sicher nicht bleibend. Ich habe übrigens diese zwei Bilder (die ich nicht dazu zuordnen konnte) zum Löschantrag hinzugefügt. darkweasel94 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Schon ok, deshalb habe ich sie ja benannt. Ich würde aber sagen, das Kunstwerk ist Geschichte, wenn es da abgebaut wird? Damit wäre es "auf Lebenszeit" und damit bleibend. --Ralf Roleček 22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Naja, wenn das so wäre, wäre auch jedes Wahlplakat "bleibend" (und das wurde in Österreich explizit gerichtlich verneint)? Ich denke nicht, dass das wirklich so ist. darkweasel94 08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Schon ok, deshalb habe ich sie ja benannt. Ich würde aber sagen, das Kunstwerk ist Geschichte, wenn es da abgebaut wird? Damit wäre es "auf Lebenszeit" und damit bleibend. --Ralf Roleček 22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ich bin aus Wien, habe das allerdings noch nicht gesehen (kann aber einmal hinfahren). Aber wenn explizit dort steht, dass es vom 15. Mai bis zum 10. November dort steht, ist es wohl ziemlich sicher nicht bleibend. Ich habe übrigens diese zwei Bilder (die ich nicht dazu zuordnen konnte) zum Löschantrag hinzugefügt. darkweasel94 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploader or 'permission granter' are not the author — Racconish Tk 16:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is the official photography of Veronique Leroy. I work for the company Veronique Leroy so I have all the right for the veronique leroy.jpg
- Thank You
- --Jbduunoyer (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need the authorization of the copyright owner, not the subject. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please have the photographer give Commons a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence of publication bedore 1963 — Racconish Tk 17:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I think this is a copyvio because the book where the image is taken from is not a USAF book. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I plainly stated the source when the photo was uploaded. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- You can't upload copyrighted images, even if you state the source. The book is a copyrighted work. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bogus {{PD-URAA}} license. This is a recent foto. JuTa 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bogus {{PD-URAA}} license. Why this 1998 iranian image is in PD in Iran and USA? JuTa 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Plainly invalid PD claim. No evidence of American publication. Photo of a UK national, found in a UK archive, indicated as published in a UK magazine. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The ebay sellers state on the item's page, "The Claire Bloom photo has the original MGM caption on the back." This was likely one of many publicity stills that MGM sent out, from the U.S., with their movie press kits to magazines and newspapers worldwide. It was a U.S. film. The facts that she was British, and that a UK magazine kept the still in its files after using it, are secondary. --Light show (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- None of that is evidence of publication in the US. And when you say "likely", you're admitting that you're assuming without actual evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The fact that it was printed, then distiubuted by the studio to the press to publicize an American film, is proof of publication per copyright law, and the date is implied:
Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public.--Light show (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: If it has an MGM caption, it was distributed in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bogus {{PD-URAA}} usage. This is a recent art-like, and therefor copyrighted logo. JuTa 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
unclear if {{PD-URAA}} applies here, its even unclear if this image is currently in PD in Russia its source country - compare {{PD-Russia}}. JuTa 21:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
copyvio : arms drawn by Bruno Bernhardt Heim (1911-2003) and taken from the official website Kathisma (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Warum jetzt nochmals löschen, Heim ist 10 Jahre tot, Homeyer 3 Jahre, Wappen in Wikipedia seit 2010, wem nützt die Löschung ????--Ekpah (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Who benefits ? legality. Works of art are legally protected during 75 years after their creator's death. Kathisma (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am not shure, if coat of the arms have copyrights. And i think, they are not difficult to draw so they do not have ... in german we call it "Schöpfungshöhe". --DaBroMfld (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that a coat of arms is made of two things: the blazon and the drawing. The blazon (the things represented) is always copyright-free and anyone can make a depiction of this blazon, though legal restrictions can limit the use of this drawing. the effective depiction (the way the blazon is represented in drawing) is considered as a work of art, protected by intellectual property unless the law has created exceptions. In Germany, only the depictions of coats of arms of official bodies (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) are exempt from copyright. The representations of coats of arms of individuals or of private collective persons (such as societies, for instance) are eligible to copyright and common intellectual property rules apply to the depictions. In this very case, Schöpfungshöhe can absolutely not be invoked as Bruno Bernhard Heim is precisely known for having deeply renewed church heraldic art by his very personal style when he was the heraldist of the Vatican. In fact, the "creativity thershold" mostly concerns very simple shapes made of simple lettering or of basic geometry. Kathisma (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am not shure, if coat of the arms have copyrights. And i think, they are not difficult to draw so they do not have ... in german we call it "Schöpfungshöhe". --DaBroMfld (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Who benefits ? legality. Works of art are legally protected during 75 years after their creator's death. Kathisma (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
copyvio : all the elements have been taken from Arnaud Bunel's website. See the presentation of the successive versions : http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Presentation.htm (version 3 : 2000-2004). Kathisma (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
probably not permanently exposed, so not covered by FOP darkweasel94 22:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kinder Surprise
[edit]derivative works of copyrighted packaging and toys.
- File:Hauprstrassenrosa 27.08.2012 17-56-32.33.jpg
- File:Kinder Surprise Christmas.jpg
- File:Kinder surprise, Atelier photo.jpg
- File:Kinder Surprise, Starfish.jpg
- File:Kinder-Joy.jpg
- File:KinderSmart.JPG
- File:Überraschungsei.jpg
- File:KinderEgg.jpg
russavia (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kinder Surprise
[edit]Derivative works of copyrighted figures!
- File:Ü-Ei Wikinger.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie British Indian Army um 1900 (von ca. 1978) A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie British Indian Army um 1900 (von ca. 1978) B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie British Indian Army um 1900 (von ca. 1978) C.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Musketiere (von 1978 oder 1988) A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Musketiere (von 1978 oder 1988) B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Musketiere (von 1978 oder 1988) C.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Musketiere (von 1978 oder 1988) D.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Römer (von 1978 oder 1986) A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Römer (von 1978 oder 1986) B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Römer (von 1978 oder 1986) C.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Wikinger ´(1976 1978 oder 1886) A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Wikinger ´(1976 1978 oder 1886) B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Wikinger ´(1976 1978 oder 1886) C.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figur aus der Serie Wikinger ´(1976 1978 oder 1886) D.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien British Indian Army und Römer A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien British Indian Army Wikinger und Römer A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien British Indian Army Wikinger und Römer B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien Wikinger Römer und Musketiere A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien Wikinger Römer und Musketiere B.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien Wikinger ´und Römer A.jpg
- File:Ü-Ei-Figuren aus den Serien Wikinger ´und Römer B.jpg
_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kinder Surprise
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the Ukraine!
- File:Kyiv - Khmelnytskiy on egg.jpg
- File:New Year decorative illumination at Sofiiska Square in Kiev (2).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Young and Innocent
[edit]Why this 1937 UK movie is in PD in its source country? Film director Alfred Hitchcock died 1980, which makes it IMHO copyrighted until 2051.
- File:John Longden in Young and Innocent.jpg
- File:Nova pilbeam young and innocent.png
- File:Percy Marmont in Young and Innocent.jpg
- File:Young and Innocent 3.jpg
- File:Young and Innocent 4.jpg
JuTa 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashishukla1992 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work. Could be found on other web sites, including official.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danielniebla807 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Compras ,descubrimiento.jpg
- File:La casa del ladron.jpg
- File:En festejo.jpg
- File:En la boda.jpg
- File:Actor en la boda.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fiorellafaltoyano49 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP. User Fiorellafaltoyano49 uploaded a row of different photos regarding Spanish actress Cristina Higueras, some of them credited to photographers (e.g. File:Fiorella Faltoyano. Fotografía de Luis Malibrán..jpg), others grabbed from internet (e.g. File:Cristina higueras 42.jpg). It might be that the uploader "possess" the images but are unlikely "own" work. Permission from those, who pulled the trigger, needed.
- File:CRISTINA HIGUERAS (40)red.JPG
- File:CRISTINA HIGUERAS (37)baja.JPG
- File:Cristina higueras 39.jpg
red.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
baja.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Groupeconseil (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam: Photos and text-biographies or apparently non-notable persons.
- File:Profil - Adama.pdf
- File:Profil du Gestionnaire.pdf
- File:Profil du VP- Dev des affaires.pdf
- File:Profil-Marc Gendron.pdf
-- Tuválkin ✉ 04:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, these two, too:
- These were not caught by VisualFileChange, for some reason. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhon sebastian bedoya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probable copyvios. It's possible that this is a very skilled person, but very unlikely that they'd upload such low resolution copies of their work without saying anything about it, and bearing in mind the information on the user page, it's unlikely.
- File:Mamasita rica.jpg - Higher resolution version here
- File:Tigre en la noche.jpg - Google reverse image search shows several copies including apparent source it was based on
- File:Fondo-de-tigres-bonitos-en-el-caribe-757.jpg - Copies via Google reverse image search
- File:Naves invasoras.jpg - Google reverse image search shows many much higher resolution copies
Also, can we have the personal information on his/her user page removed from the public record for reasons of personal safety? Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhon sebastian bedoya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
INeverCry 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jéferson Camila do Nascimento (talk · contribs)
[edit]A row of historic photos regarding en:Carmen Miranda, a Brazilian film superstar who was popular worldwide from the 1930s to the 1950s, tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}} = published between 1923 & 1977 without a copyright notice. It is unclear if the uploader made sufficient efforts to clarify the copyright status. Normally, a superficial internet search reveals only cropped versions (cutlines removed) but there might be other sources and databases (including Ebay) to first verify, considering also that e.g. File:Carmen Miranda performing at the NBC Studios — New York, 1939.png is available also via GettyImages
Additionally:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
were taken in Brazil in 1939 and are licensed with {{PD-Brazil-media}} (+70 years after publication). However, the work were not yet in the public domain in Brazil on the URAA date (1 January 1996), so it is copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. Commons requires files to be free in both the United States and in the source country.
- File:Miranda, Carmen (A Date With Judy).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda with U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda with Walt Disney.jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda performing at the NBC Studios — New York, 1939.png
- File:Carmen Miranda deixando sua assinatura no pátio do Teatro Chinês em Hollywood..jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda em 1939.jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda (Week-End in Havana).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda no filme Banana da Terra (1939).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda (Springtime in the Rockies).jpg
- File:Miranda, Carmen (That Night in Rio).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda in Greenwich Village (1944).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda in That Night in Rio.jpg
- File:The Gang's All Here (1943) 2.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){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Considering this edit (cleaning entries of this DR) by LubraxGL, who also - similar to Jéferson Camila do Nascimento - uploaded recently files regarding Carmen Miranda, I nominate additional the following file per above reasons:
- File:Miranda, Carmen (Gang's All Here, The).jpg (available on GettyImages)
- File:Carmen Miranda e o Bando da Lua.jpg
- File:Miranda, Carmen (Week-End in Havana).jpg
- File:Carmen Miranda on BBC Radio.jpg
- File:Aurora Miranda and Donald Duck.jpeg (Aurora Miranda is the sister of Carmen Mirando, here a screenshot with Donald Duck of en:The Three Caballeros, a 1944 American animated musical film produced by Walt Disney Productions.)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of fan/promo photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
File:HZ-RCA.jpg was deleted for being a copyright violation; here are images which have no EXIF and are of low-quality web size and/or copyrighted logos.
- File:SRCA-new-color-logo.png
- File:SRCA-Bell412.jpg
- File:Ksa-world.jpg
- File:Srca-arabic-logo.png
- File:SRCA-new-logo.png
- File:SRCA-MD900.jpg
- File:Hzrc01.jpg
- File:Hz-rc03.jpg
- File:Rcsa-f1.gif
- File:SRCA wing.jpg
russavia (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Rcsa-f1.gif, just the Saudi coat of arms with a red crescent. Delete the others. Fry1989 eh? 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one, per Fry . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by شكرى شعبان (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. All the other photos of Mr. Korban uploaded by User:ExtraSenSor were copyrighted pictures taken from around the internet, and I flagged them for speedy deletion. But I can't find what webpage this is taken from. Brainy J (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Partial panorama image - complete one coming Pratyeka (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions (Facebook?), missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Doubt this is own work - looks like part of a series on http://www.coolthingsworld.com/welcome-to-desert-with-range-rover-evoque/ Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a same image for same name so i want to delete it. Aarkentechnologies (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I also have a same image with same name so i want to delete it. Aarkentechnologies (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Earlier source: http://theholesofmysoles.blogspot.se/2012/12/when-brits-wouldnt-call-it-quits.html
This looks like something which might be old, so it might be in the public domain for some reason, although the "own work" claim is wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Urheber Harald Bischoff fotografiert ungefragt auf der Messe Künstler, stellt sie bei Wikipedia ein und betreibt danach Abmahnverfahren bei ungenehmigter Verwendung. Xforyou (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: 1 second triangle wave at 330 hz. Distorted by vorbis compression. The file is not in use. McZusatz (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On the same file in WIkipedia, it says it is a copyrighted, but on here, it says a different story. A fair use photo has been transfered to Commons, which is not allowed. Blurred Lines (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
PCL has updated their brand logo/image. I am responsible to make sure it is updated on here and all our social media platforms. I have never used Wikipedia before so I am not sure how to upload it properly so that it doesn't get deleted? I am also not sure how to get our old logo deleted that a random user uploaded.
Deleted -FASTILY 01:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The author should use Template:Fb instead (please look at the source).
Deleted -FASTILY 01:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Bogus {{PD-URAA}} usage. Proparbly a copyright violation. If it is own work as stated it would need a i.e. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} set by the author. JuTa 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Porque se retângulo atrás do brasão está errado, a certa e a que tem um losango atrás do brasão. WkDiegoLombardi (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:45a Volodymyrska Street, Kiev 05.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This kept, File:45a Volodymyrska Street, Kiev 05.JPG deleted. Anatoliy (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"This barnstar is sugested for human sexuality topics." Nobody has taken that suggestion up since this file's creation in 2010. That's because this barnstar is utterly horrible and "awarding" someone a vagina is ill-considered and tasteless to say the least. Delete as unused and useless. — Scott • talk 12:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I vould explain the history of this image, (in witch it would make sense and wont be completelly "horible") but I really dont care, it wont change anything at the image is in fact useless. So delete it.--Fafrin (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Plainly invalid PD claim. No evidence of American publication. No evidence of date of publication. Source states photo located in Zagreb in the archives of a Yugoslavian magazine. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The ebay listing also states, "The photo is from the archive of the film magazine „Filmska kultura“ which has been issued at Zagreb since 1957 untill 1990’s. It was one of the most significant and long-time movie magazines." They obviously received it in a press kit that the studio mass-mailed to the international media. That this particular magazine kept a copy which is now being sold is simply a source for the photo. The fact that it was printed, then distiubuted by the studio to the press to publicize an American film, is proof of publication per copyright law and the date is implied:
Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public.
- If you look at the seller's upload, there's evidence that this has been cropped by the white area at upper right. The copyright and year of publication may be missing because of this. There's no proof Columbia didn't issue the photo with appropriate notice.
- The film was re-issued circa 1973-1974, as was Five Easy Pieces Posters and publicity photos were re-struck. This is a photo from the same sequence and it's marked copyright Columbia Pictures on both lower right and again with the 1974 dating at bottom. So we also don't know if this is from 1969 or 1973/1974. We hope (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment As far as I can tell, the copyright term for photos in Croatia on the URAA date was 25 years from publication (see COM:CRT#Croatia). For the US copyright status, this would make it irrelevant whether the first publication was in USA or Croatia, as long as it was published before 1971. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
unused file. superseded by File:Lastgasp.svg McZusatz (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why a delete request instead of a plain {{Superseded}}? // Liftarn (talk)
- The template you mentioned is already placed. Furthermore I do not think we need the JPG file. Of course you can post a reason to keep the file in this discussion and the closing admin will take it into account. --McZusatz (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: svg traced from this file so it has to be kept Denniss (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Brazilian municipality pt:Paripueira founded in 1993, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) prior to 1983". Imho, non-trivial text logo, failing PD-whatever. Gunnex (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to make sense. I will not oppose the deletion.Shaitan (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Request by creator, no longer in use. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use Denniss (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Captain Thor (talk · contribs)
[edit]These look like scans of books and paintings so unlikely own work. Might be in the public domain for one reason or another if they are old enough.
Stefan4 (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly not own work but scans from somewhere else. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. If they are old enough etc. to be in the public domain, please go to COM:UNDEL with sufficient information about the author, age of the image, time of first publication etc. Rosenzweig τ 18:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Logo of band http://www.lastwarning.at/ , may not be under threshold of originality, probably not uploader's own work. Brainy J (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
As a member of the band The Last Warning (and director of the company) I´m the owner of this work --HJMoitzi (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you understand that by uploading files to Commons, you are allowing anyone to use, distribute, and modify them, including making money off of them?--Brainy J (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD text logo -- it's a fancy font, but all fonts are non-copyrightable . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe this logo has too many splotches independent of the lettering to qualify as text logo. See COM:TOO#United States Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep USCO Circular 1, Copyright Basics, page 3:
- "Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
- ...mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring..."
- "Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
- As a general rule a typeface, even one that has been designed for a single purpose, does not give rise to a copyright in the USA. Other countries, notably the UK, have very different rules. Therefore the three characters here don't have a copyright.
- We also have three red pixels which are not part of the typeface -- that's all I could find when I enlarged the image. I don't think three pixels can have a copyright either. Also, if I go to http://www.99xcleveland.com/main.html, copy the image in the upper left corner, and enlarge it, I find only two red pixels, not in the same place as in the Commons upload. I think it is entirely possible that the red pixels that are not part of the typeface are an artifact of some sort and not intentional.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would not call the splotches as part of the typeface, as evidenced by the fact that both 9's have different splotches. Simply put, the splotches are not part of the typeface; they are part of a design separate from it. Just because a layer of creativity happens to be contained within a letter doesn't automatically exempt it from copyright; what does exempt it from copyright is the design of the letter itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your POV is supported by the fact that the splotches are different in the two examples, but I stand by my feeling that they are "mere typographic ornamentation". Your POV implies, however, that the station has two different copyrighted logos, which seems strange to me.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand how my POV supports the idea of two different copyrighted logos, or how that would be particularly strange. Please explain.
- Also, I notice quite a few splotches outside the lettering now. Is your position seriously that a bunch of splotches that would normally be copyrightable can be made uncopyrightable simply by putting letters next to them? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two logos -- the one shown in the file that is the subject of this DR and the one currently shown at the station's web site have different splotches. According to your POV, they must both have copyrights. Since actually defending a copyright requires some effort -- registration and so forth -- it seems unlikely that a station would have two that were very similar. Your "quite a few splotches outside the lettering" are, by my count after enlarging the images, fewer than five in each case, leaving aside anti-aliasing artifacts. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The splotches look exactly the same to me in both of them: [4] [5]. Regardless, I don't see how it's relevant: it's not exactly unprecedented for organizations to have more than one logo. Finally, your statement about "they won't bother to sue" runs directly contrary to one of the most important principles on Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever said "they won't bother to sue", certainly not here, and I'd be surprised if I said in a similar context anywhere. As you say, it's a vital principle and, in fact, I have argued today against such a statement at Commons talk:FOP/Namibia. I did say above that defending a copyright is expensive so it is unlikely that a company would have two logos that were very similar -- why expose yourself to potentially having to defend two logos when you could have only a single exposure? That's true, comes directly out of my business experience, and is in no way in conflict with Commons principles. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The splotches look exactly the same to me in both of them: [4] [5]. Regardless, I don't see how it's relevant: it's not exactly unprecedented for organizations to have more than one logo. Finally, your statement about "they won't bother to sue" runs directly contrary to one of the most important principles on Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two logos -- the one shown in the file that is the subject of this DR and the one currently shown at the station's web site have different splotches. According to your POV, they must both have copyrights. Since actually defending a copyright requires some effort -- registration and so forth -- it seems unlikely that a station would have two that were very similar. Your "quite a few splotches outside the lettering" are, by my count after enlarging the images, fewer than five in each case, leaving aside anti-aliasing artifacts. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your POV is supported by the fact that the splotches are different in the two examples, but I stand by my feeling that they are "mere typographic ornamentation". Your POV implies, however, that the station has two different copyrighted logos, which seems strange to me.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would not call the splotches as part of the typeface, as evidenced by the fact that both 9's have different splotches. Simply put, the splotches are not part of the typeface; they are part of a design separate from it. Just because a layer of creativity happens to be contained within a letter doesn't automatically exempt it from copyright; what does exempt it from copyright is the design of the letter itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/WMMS-HD2%2C_W256BT_logo.png){kind=link}
![[5]](http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/14894/01/14894_1357930552.png?t=1){kind=link}
- Delete The textures seem to be more complex than VAu000635117 (bottom of page 1 in this PDF) and VAu001043271 (File:LogoDisneyJunior.svg). I don't really see any difference here. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY 03:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Modern university papers, which could be replaced with wiki /math markup. Unclear authorship.
- File:ACT5a.jpg
- File:ACT5b.jpg
- File:ACT5d.jpg
- File:ACT5c.jpg
- File:ACT5e.jpg
- File:Act3ageo.jpg
- File:Act3geo.jpg
- File:Actividad 1b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1a.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3d.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3f.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3e.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3a.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3c.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3b.jpg
- File:PropLimites1.jpg
- File:PropLimites2.jpg
- File:Diagrama de flujoAct4.JPG
- File:OG Trabajo equipo.jpg
- File:DF Trabajo equipo.jpg
- File:MapaMentalAct4Wiki.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite3.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite2.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite1.jpg
- File:Wiki4f.jpg
- File:Wiki4e.jpg
- File:Wiki4d.jpg
- File:Wiki4b.jpg
- File:Wiki4a.jpg
- File:Wiki4c.jpg
- File:Pag7Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag6Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag5Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag4Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag2Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:PortadaAct1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag3Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2 c.jpg
- File:Acitvidad 2 b.jpg
- File:Actividad 2 a.jpg
- File:Limite 40 en 3.jpg
- File:Limites 40.jpg
- File:F continua.jpg
- File:Limite x cuadrada.jpg
- File:Limite.jpg
- File:G DE SENO.jpg
- File:Wiki5aAct4.jpg
- File:Wiki4Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki5Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki3Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki1Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki2Act4.jpg
- File:Actividad 1 Unid2.jpg
- File:ActFunciones.jpg
- File:PAG7.jpg
- File:PAG5.jpg
- File:PAG4.jpg
- File:PAG6.jpg
- File:PAG1.jpg
- File:PAG3.jpg
- File:PAG2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused college papers of unclear origin. Anyway out of Commons:Project scope: should be replaced with math/wiki mark-up and SVG graphic.
- File:Actividad2c.jpg
- File:Actividad2a.jpg
- File:Actividad2b.jpg
- File:Actividad2.jpg
- File:Actividad 4c.jpg
- File:Actividad 4a.jpg
- File:Actividad4.jpg
- File:Actividad 4b.jpg
- File:Parabola 2.jpg
- File:Parabola 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents which should be replaced with wiki/math markup and SVG graph.
- File:Actforo.jpg
- File:Actforo1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2.jpg
- File:Actividad dosa.jpg
- File:Actividad 1a.jpg
- File:Actividad 1b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2c.jpg
- File:Actividad 2d.jpg
- File:Actividad 1g.jpg
- File:Actividad 2a.jpg
- File:Actividad 2b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1f.jpg
- File:Actividad 1e.jpg
- File:Actividad 1d.jpg
- File:Actividad 1c.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --A.Savin 21:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Invalid {{PD-ineligible}} claims. The signs are more complex than w:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg, which is copyrighted in Australia according to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1997/215.html
The same problem also seems to apply to other images on the page.
- File:Australia 7-3-2.svg
- File:Australia 7-3-3.svg
- File:Australia 7-3-4.svg
- File:Australia 7-4-2.svg
- File:Australia 7-4-3.svg
- File:Australia 7-4-4.svg
- File:Australia G5-7.svg
- File:Australia G5-8.svg
- File:Australia G7-1-2.svg
- File:Australia G7-1-3.svg
- File:Australia G7-1-4.svg
- File:Australia G7-1-6.svg
- File:Australia G7-2-2.svg
- File:Australia G7-2-3.svg
- File:Australia G7-2-4.svg
- File:Australia G9-82.svg
- File:Australia G9-83.svg
- File:Australia R3-5 (L).svg
- File:Australia R3-5 (R).svg
- File:Australia R4-4.svg
- File:Australia R4-5.svg
- File:Australia R4-6.svg
- File:Australia R5-39.svg
- File:Australia R6-31.svg
- File:Australia R7-1-1.svg
- File:Australia R7-1-3.svg
- File:Australia R7-1-4.svg
- File:Australia R7-7-3.svg
- File:Australia R7-7-4.svg
- File:Australia R7-7-5.svg
- File:Australia R7-7-6.svg
- File:Australia R7-8.svg
- File:Australia R8-1.svg
- File:Australia R8-2.svg
- File:Australia R8-3.svg
- File:Australia RX-10.svg
- File:Australia RX-11.svg
- File:Australia RX-3-1.svg
- File:Australia RX-3-2.svg
- File:Australia RX-3-3.svg
- File:Australia RX-4 (L).svg
- File:Australia RX-4 (R).svg
- File:Australia RX-5 (24).svg
- File:Australia RX-5 (25).svg
- File:Australia RX-7 (L).svg
- File:Australia RX-7 (R).svg
- File:Australia T1-19.svg
- File:Australia T1-30.svg
- File:Australia T1-5.svg
- File:Australia T2-25.svg
- File:Australia T3-15.svg
- File:Australia T3-3.svg
- File:Australia T3-9.svg
- File:Australia W1-8 (L).svg
- File:Australia W1-8 (R).svg
- File:Australia W5-12.svg
- File:Australia W5-13.svg
- File:Australia W5-20.svg
- File:Australia W5-22.svg
- File:Australia W5-30.svg
- File:Australia W5-38.svg
- File:Australia W5-41.svg
- File:Australia W5-42 (L).svg
- File:Australia W5-42 (R).svg
- File:Australia W5-44.svg
- File:Australia W5-45.svg
- File:Australia W5-46.svg
- File:Australia W5-47.svg
- File:Australia W5-48.svg
- File:Australia W5-50.svg
- File:Australia W6-1.svg
- File:Australia W6-2 (fluoro with target board).svg
- File:Australia W6-3.svg
- File:Australia W6-3 (fluorescent).svg
- File:Australia W6-3 (fluoro with target board).svg
- File:Australia W6-7.svg
- File:Australia W6-9.svg
- File:Australia W7-12 (L).svg
- File:Australia W7-12 (R).svg
- File:Australia W7-13 (L).svg
- File:Australia W7-13 (R).svg
- File:Australia W7-17 (L).svg
- File:Australia W7-17 (R).svg
- File:Australia W7-4.svg
- File:Australia W7-7 (L).svg
- File:Australia W7-7 (R).svg
- File:Australia W7-8.svg
- File:Australia W7-9 (L).svg
- File:Australia W7-9 (R).svg
- File:Northern Territory W6-3F.svg
- File:Queensland R7-Q04.svg
- File:Queensland T1-Q05.svg
- File:Queensland T1-Q10.svg
- File:Queensland T3-Q03.svg
- File:Queensland W5-Q10.svg
- File:Queensland W6-Q01.svg
- File:Queensland W6-Q02.svg
- File:Victoria W3-V101.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V110.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V111.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V112.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V116.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V123.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V128.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V129.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V131.svg
- File:Victoria W5-V132 (L).svg
- File:Victoria W5-V132 (R).svg
- File:Victoria W6-V101.svg
- File:Victoria W6-V103.svg
- File:Victoria W6-V104.svg
- File:Victoria W6-V105.svg
- File:Victoria W6-V106.svg
- File:Victoria W6-V2-1 (L).svg
- File:Victoria W6-V2-1 (R).svg
- File:Victoria W6-V2-2 (L).svg
- File:Victoria W6-V2-2 (R).svg
- File:Victoria W6-V9-2.svg
- File:Western Australia MR-WDP-3.svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Why delete? Most of, if not all of these symbols are too simplistic to be copyrighted in the USA (the country where the files are hosted). Seems to me that the template may need to be changed to the same one on the flag page {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --Danrok (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:L, all files have to be free in both the source country and the United States. Some of them also seem to be too complex for w:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Aboriginal flag as the supposed standard TOO in Australia has NOT been confirmed, there are no other examples in the Australian entry to support it and until there is that extreme level of TOO for Australian copyright will always be in doubt. Having read the notice, it appears the threshold of originality was not even discussed and the Judge over the case refused to give an opinion regarding that aspect of copyright. The matter at hand was who the actual designer was. I demand this supposed TOO in Australia be substantiated! Keep
- The Aboriginal flag as the supposed standard TOO in Australia has NOT been confirmed, there are no other examples in the Australian entry to support it and until there is that extreme level of TOO for Australian copyright will always be in doubt. Having read the notice, it appears the threshold of originality was not even discussed and the Judge over the case refused to give an opinion regarding that aspect of copyright. The matter at hand was who the actual designer was. I demand this supposed TOO in Australia be substantiated!
- Per COM:L, all files have to be free in both the source country and the United States. Some of them also seem to be too complex for w:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is also most likely revenge for my votes against some of your other questionable DRs, where you have said things that are patently false and I've called you out on them. Fry1989 eh? 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all. Whilst the nomination may not best make use of COM:TOO arguments with the Aboriginal flag case, for it is a special case, COM:TOO#United_Kingdom does provide guidance for us in terms of Australian law. These are all clearly over the threshold of originality, and hence they are, unfortunately, not suitable for Commons. russavia (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- They have to be examined on an individual basis because they're all different levels of completity. You can not claim File:Australia G7-2-4.svg is the same as File:Australia W6-7.svg, for example. Those that are deemed deletable MUST be properly moved to Wiki-EN as was done with the route shields. Fry1989 eh? 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Victoria W5-V128.svg, tractor is derivative of File:UK traffic sign 553.1.svg with OGL license. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or maybe File:UK traffic sign 553.1.svg is a derivative of File:Victoria W5-V128.svg instead of the other way around, in which case the OGL licence is invalid... --Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have to be joking. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or maybe File:UK traffic sign 553.1.svg is a derivative of File:Victoria W5-V128.svg instead of the other way around, in which case the OGL licence is invalid... --Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Just remove "Australia" from the filename (and description). Most of these signs are found in other countries. Problem solved. ;-) --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, the Aboriginal flag argument isn't even as strong as people pretend. We have several photos of the flag on here licensed as FOP, there's nothing stopping us from making an SVG of the flag and claiming a FOP photo as the source. And again, threshold of originality was not mentioned in the case at all. There has really been zero proof of what the Australian standard for TOO actually is. The truth is that the Aboriginal flag case is about as strong as a wet spaghetti noodle and is seriously needs to stop being everyone's jump-to when they see something Australian and think it might be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you can identify some signs which are free for some reason, then please add proper copyright tags and also sources for those copyright tags. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have identified at least one, and while I may not for the others, the Aboriginal flag case still remains very questionable. It is the only entry for Australian TOO we have, but the actual case does not mention originality concerns at all and the judge refused to opine about that. And as I also stated, we have many photos of the flag under FOP licensing which gives us a technical workaround something we do know solidly is copyrighted. It's hardly the standard bearer for Australian TOO that some people pretend it is, there is no supporting entries as there is for US or British TOOs so in fact we do not know what Australia's threshold of originality is at all! Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course we do; given the type of legal system we have here in Australia. Most common law countries with a history of British colonisation would be the same in this regard. russavia (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, we don't. We have a bunch of circumstantial comparisons and suppositions, but no actual supporting evidence that Australia's threshold of originality is set at the Aboriginal flag, less, or even more strict. We don't know. Fry1989 eh? 04:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You stated: so in fact we do not know what Australia's threshold of originality is at all!. My comments were clearly in direct reply to that statement, given my previous comments on the uniqueness of the Australian Aboriginal flag case. So yes, yes we do have other instances of COM:TOO#United_Kingdom which we are able to include in any COM:TOO#Australia due to the history and nature of our legal systems. This is common knowledge/sense and surely does not require any case law in Australia, when case law in the UK is able to guide us. russavia (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're not getting it, so let me explain this differently. We know that even under Britain's strict TOO, the Aboriginal flag wouldn't be complex enough to be copyrighted. We know that based on UK entry for TOO and the many British images here that are more complex than two rectangles and a circle. So if we're gonna compare Britain to Australia and consider that comparison strong enough to make policy on it, we would ignore the claim of copyright on that flag because it's too simple for the UK. Let's look at File:Underground.svg for example, that comprises two circles, a rectangle AND text, but it's not considered copyrighted in the UK. Now do you see why simply comparing countries with like-law systems is not a good idea, and why we also need real evidence one way or the other?? Fry1989 eh? 04:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You wrote that "We know that even under Britain's strict TOO, the Aboriginal flag wouldn't be complex enough to be copyrighted". Could you provide a reference for this statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I already have, take a look at the UK entry for TOO and the linked file which is a UK image and not copyrighted but more complicated than the flag. Comparing countries with similar law systems, which while admirable in it's intent to fill a hole of information, will only get us so far. What we really need is solid evidence for the country at hand.
- You wrote that "We know that even under Britain's strict TOO, the Aboriginal flag wouldn't be complex enough to be copyrighted". Could you provide a reference for this statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're not getting it, so let me explain this differently. We know that even under Britain's strict TOO, the Aboriginal flag wouldn't be complex enough to be copyrighted. We know that based on UK entry for TOO and the many British images here that are more complex than two rectangles and a circle. So if we're gonna compare Britain to Australia and consider that comparison strong enough to make policy on it, we would ignore the claim of copyright on that flag because it's too simple for the UK. Let's look at File:Underground.svg for example, that comprises two circles, a rectangle AND text, but it's not considered copyrighted in the UK. Now do you see why simply comparing countries with like-law systems is not a good idea, and why we also need real evidence one way or the other?? Fry1989 eh? 04:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You stated: so in fact we do not know what Australia's threshold of originality is at all!. My comments were clearly in direct reply to that statement, given my previous comments on the uniqueness of the Australian Aboriginal flag case. So yes, yes we do have other instances of COM:TOO#United_Kingdom which we are able to include in any COM:TOO#Australia due to the history and nature of our legal systems. This is common knowledge/sense and surely does not require any case law in Australia, when case law in the UK is able to guide us. russavia (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, we don't. We have a bunch of circumstantial comparisons and suppositions, but no actual supporting evidence that Australia's threshold of originality is set at the Aboriginal flag, less, or even more strict. We don't know. Fry1989 eh? 04:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course we do; given the type of legal system we have here in Australia. Most common law countries with a history of British colonisation would be the same in this regard. russavia (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have identified at least one, and while I may not for the others, the Aboriginal flag case still remains very questionable. It is the only entry for Australian TOO we have, but the actual case does not mention originality concerns at all and the judge refused to opine about that. And as I also stated, we have many photos of the flag under FOP licensing which gives us a technical workaround something we do know solidly is copyrighted. It's hardly the standard bearer for Australian TOO that some people pretend it is, there is no supporting entries as there is for US or British TOOs so in fact we do not know what Australia's threshold of originality is at all! Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you can identify some signs which are free for some reason, then please add proper copyright tags and also sources for those copyright tags. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, the Aboriginal flag argument isn't even as strong as people pretend. We have several photos of the flag on here licensed as FOP, there's nothing stopping us from making an SVG of the flag and claiming a FOP photo as the source. And again, threshold of originality was not mentioned in the case at all. There has really been zero proof of what the Australian standard for TOO actually is. The truth is that the Aboriginal flag case is about as strong as a wet spaghetti noodle and is seriously needs to stop being everyone's jump-to when they see something Australian and think it might be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- My other point is that the files listed here are of various complexities and must be reviewed on an independent basis. Look at File:Victoria W6-V101.svg, you can delete that one, delete it a hundred times over. I freely admit it's too complicated for the UK and probably too complicated for Australia too, the cyclists are absolutely a unique image. But you can not then pretend it's of the same complexity as File:Australia W5-22.svg which in much more simple and probably a toddler could draw. Some of these should absolutely go, but a lot of them shouldn't. Fry1989 eh? 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hm? In the section COM:TOO#United Kingdom, I only find copyrighted images, so I don't see how I can tell whether something is below the threshold of originality or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why is this so difficult for you? The UK TOO entry shows us what is complex enough, and the file I linked shows us things that are not complex enough. That file (and the other TfL logos) was kept in DR because of basic geometry and PD font. Surely you agree that two circles + a rectangle + text is more complicated than just two rectangles + a circle, which means in the UK the Aboriginal flag would not be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could you link to a court case where a British court decides that two circles + a rectangle + text isn't copyrightable? This page claims that it is copyrightable. That page wouldn't claim that the artwork is copyrightable if a court has said that it isn't, so I assume that there either hasn't been any court ruling about that image, or that a court has granted copyright to it. The deletion discussions for File:Underground.svg don't seem to consider British law at all. That said, File:Underground.svg seems to have been designed by w:Frank Pick (circles+rectangle) and w:Edward Johnston (lettering), meaning that it will be fully {{PD-old-70}} in just a little more than a year, and the lettering (the only part which isn't already {{PD-old-70}}) might be too simple even for the UK. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted for the same reason as the BBC logo which we have had extensive discussions about on Commons. It uses the most basic of geometry and PD font for the text. Fry1989 eh? 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide evidence (i.e. a w:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruling) that the BBC logo isn't copyrighted? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was decided by our Commons community and that's all that matters. The blocks are too simple, the font is too old. Fry1989 eh? 04:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide evidence (i.e. a w:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruling) that the BBC logo isn't copyrighted? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted for the same reason as the BBC logo which we have had extensive discussions about on Commons. It uses the most basic of geometry and PD font for the text. Fry1989 eh? 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could you link to a court case where a British court decides that two circles + a rectangle + text isn't copyrightable? This page claims that it is copyrightable. That page wouldn't claim that the artwork is copyrightable if a court has said that it isn't, so I assume that there either hasn't been any court ruling about that image, or that a court has granted copyright to it. The deletion discussions for File:Underground.svg don't seem to consider British law at all. That said, File:Underground.svg seems to have been designed by w:Frank Pick (circles+rectangle) and w:Edward Johnston (lettering), meaning that it will be fully {{PD-old-70}} in just a little more than a year, and the lettering (the only part which isn't already {{PD-old-70}}) might be too simple even for the UK. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why is this so difficult for you? The UK TOO entry shows us what is complex enough, and the file I linked shows us things that are not complex enough. That file (and the other TfL logos) was kept in DR because of basic geometry and PD font. Surely you agree that two circles + a rectangle + text is more complicated than just two rectangles + a circle, which means in the UK the Aboriginal flag would not be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hm? In the section COM:TOO#United Kingdom, I only find copyrighted images, so I don't see how I can tell whether something is below the threshold of originality or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- My other point is that the files listed here are of various complexities and must be reviewed on an independent basis. Look at File:Victoria W6-V101.svg, you can delete that one, delete it a hundred times over. I freely admit it's too complicated for the UK and probably too complicated for Australia too, the cyclists are absolutely a unique image. But you can not then pretend it's of the same complexity as File:Australia W5-22.svg which in much more simple and probably a toddler could draw. Some of these should absolutely go, but a lot of them shouldn't. Fry1989 eh? 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- This DR should be closed and the offending designs should be renominated on an individual basis. Fry1989 eh? 04:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete All likely to be copyrightable in Australia and therefore as per COM:PRP should be moved to enwp. As an aside Fry1989 claim regarding the Aboriginal flag case does not make scene, if "threshold of originality was not even discussed" how can the "Judge over the case refused to give an opinion regarding that aspect of copyright" ?. As a matter of legal common scene no Judge would rule that a item was in copyright if it failed the threshold of originality, and as the court ordered "1b Harold Joseph Thomas is the owner of the copyright subsisting in the said artistic work" so absent a later ruling from higher court ruling different we have to use that as a precedent. LGA talkedits 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- We have absolutely 100% zero proof that the threshold of originality in Australia is anything. It's that simple, I don't care what precedent you think the flag sets or doesn't set, it doesn't mention the matter and we have no other Australian TOO entries so we know absolutely nothing. These signs need to be judged on an individual basis, they differ in complexity greatly and there is a high chance many of them are safe. Did you even read the full report like I did? The judge refused to look at the matter regarding the actual copyrightability of the design, flat out refused. They were simply looking at it from the viewpoint of "who the original designer is". That case is about as solid for judging Australian TOO as a pile of dung. While all you people want to jump ship based on precaution and assumption, I'm the only one reading the actual facts and we no nothing! Fry1989 eh? 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Where does the judge say he "refused to look at the matter regarding the actual copyrightability of the design" ? LGA talkedits 07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- In regards to the relevant copyright acts, the Judge mentions the corresponding design and states "The matter was not fully argued" as well as that "In those circumstances I do not need to express a view on the matter and I do not." The judge also states that under the relevant acts prior to 1990, "s.77 deprived it of copyright protection" which means this design could not be copyrighted between the time it was originally designed in 1971 to 1990. That would suggest it was actually below any threshold of originality for atleast 19 years, but it's not elaborated on whether that TOO was altered or if there is a different reason why the flag was now granted a copyright.
- Where does the judge say he "refused to look at the matter regarding the actual copyrightability of the design" ? LGA talkedits 07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- We have absolutely 100% zero proof that the threshold of originality in Australia is anything. It's that simple, I don't care what precedent you think the flag sets or doesn't set, it doesn't mention the matter and we have no other Australian TOO entries so we know absolutely nothing. These signs need to be judged on an individual basis, they differ in complexity greatly and there is a high chance many of them are safe. Did you even read the full report like I did? The judge refused to look at the matter regarding the actual copyrightability of the design, flat out refused. They were simply looking at it from the viewpoint of "who the original designer is". That case is about as solid for judging Australian TOO as a pile of dung. While all you people want to jump ship based on precaution and assumption, I'm the only one reading the actual facts and we no nothing! Fry1989 eh? 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- The case does not discuss the matter of TOO at all, and we have no other Australian entries or case law, so we really no nothing at all. We do know that under UK law this would be too simple, and under Australian law it probably was for at least 19 years, but we do not know what the law is now. The precedent we would set on Commons by deleting these without solid proof of anything but simply based on a simple flag would not just affect my road sign uploads, it would affect practically every single Australian image uploaded on Commons by everyone. And for what??? For a case that completely ignores the issue. We're blind, do you really want a blind person to lead you off a bump when it could be a cliff? Fry1989 eh? 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly the sections you talk about are regarding the Design Act and how it interacts with the copyright act, and what you can do without infringing copyright nothing to do with TOO. Secondly as you and the judge point out the situation changed "in relation to actions after 1 October 1990, the new definition applied"; it is not uncommon for rules to change over time, the US is a case of what once were PD works reacquiring protection. Given all "actions" on here are "after 1 October 1990" that part is not relevant anyway. What can not be ignored by us is that the judge ruled the work had a copyright and Mr Thomas was the owner of that copyright and we have no reason to assume that the same judge would not rule the same way in relation to any of the above, and therefore following the COM:PCP we should delete them, most of them can be uploaded to enwp as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}} anyway so I don't really see what the problem is anyway. LGA talkedits 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I know that if something is copyrighted, it can't be here. I understand that perfectly. My problem is when we begin to base our understanding of a specific country's copyright laws on something that doesn't actually say what we thought it said. The Judge not only said "I don't have to look at it from this point of view and I will not do so", they even stated that prior to 1990 this flag could not be copyrighted. We don't know what changed in 1990, but it could be a myriad of different things and all we have is an assumption. The fact it couldn't be copyrighted before 1990 for a period of 19 years is also incredibly important to this matter. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what we have to loose if we start deleting things based on something that does not say what people think it says. The issue for that flag was incredibly complex and did not deal with threshold of originality matters in any way that could actually help us build an understanding of what the Australian TOO is. The precautionary principle is an absolute joke, it's applied willy nilly without any true rhyme or reason, it's often ignored when it really shouldn't be and often invoked when it shouldn't. That's not a reason to just kill everything off of Commons. We have nothing proving anything related to Australian TOO and that is the very root of this DR. If you delete these images on the pretence that the Aboriginal flag case is proof of something it's not, you will be the cause of us loosing a lot more than just some road signs. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree. It is quite clear that on 9th April 1997 that image was afforded copyright protection by a court in Australia. Unless there is a later Australian court ruling or indication that copyright law has changed since that date to invalidate that ruling that ruling then we must assume it still holds now. It is inconceivable that a court would have made such as ruling (and it not be appealed) if the Judge had made the error of ignoring any threshold of originality issues. If you believe he did, then you need to demonstrate with sources that Australian legal scholars also take that view. I accept such a low TOO is a blow to the aims of Commons, but while Commons licencing requirements are that media must be free in the source country we can not choose to ignore that ruling. The TOO in Australia is, in my view, so low as you could not even trip over it and that makes hosting anything from an Australian source without a release (or that has time expired) all but impossible. LGA talkedits 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No of course you don't agree, you're too narrowly focused on something without looking at the bigger picture, namely that the flag in question could not be copyrighted between 1971 and 1990, and the actual case does not discuss what changed in 1990 so that it now could. The case doesn't discuss threshold of originality at all! This stupid assumption that the case is proof of Australian TOO when it's not needs to be nipped in the bud now or else we have so much to loose here besides a few signs. Until there is actual Australian case law on TOO, we know nothing about what Australian TOO is and this witch hunt DR and the precedent it would set would be a massive damage to the project because it's based on something that's not true!!! What your view of Australian TOO is, iS quite frankly irrelevant because you don't have any actual proof of what it is any more than I do. None of us have any proof what Australian TOO is and for that reason all our views on it are irrelevant. It's been suggested here that we should use UK TOO as a guide, and we already know that the flag would be too simple for the UK! If we were truly to follow the UK TOO as an example we would completely ignore the copyright on that flag. We know nothing about what the Australian TOO is, we have nothing showing us what it is, nothing at all. Now tell me what harm it is to go through the signs one by one and delete the obvious complex violations, and let the more simple ones stay, instead of lumping them all together and nuking them without any proof of anything whatsoever other than a stupid baseless assumption? Fry1989 eh? 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree. It is quite clear that on 9th April 1997 that image was afforded copyright protection by a court in Australia. Unless there is a later Australian court ruling or indication that copyright law has changed since that date to invalidate that ruling that ruling then we must assume it still holds now. It is inconceivable that a court would have made such as ruling (and it not be appealed) if the Judge had made the error of ignoring any threshold of originality issues. If you believe he did, then you need to demonstrate with sources that Australian legal scholars also take that view. I accept such a low TOO is a blow to the aims of Commons, but while Commons licencing requirements are that media must be free in the source country we can not choose to ignore that ruling. The TOO in Australia is, in my view, so low as you could not even trip over it and that makes hosting anything from an Australian source without a release (or that has time expired) all but impossible. LGA talkedits 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I know that if something is copyrighted, it can't be here. I understand that perfectly. My problem is when we begin to base our understanding of a specific country's copyright laws on something that doesn't actually say what we thought it said. The Judge not only said "I don't have to look at it from this point of view and I will not do so", they even stated that prior to 1990 this flag could not be copyrighted. We don't know what changed in 1990, but it could be a myriad of different things and all we have is an assumption. The fact it couldn't be copyrighted before 1990 for a period of 19 years is also incredibly important to this matter. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what we have to loose if we start deleting things based on something that does not say what people think it says. The issue for that flag was incredibly complex and did not deal with threshold of originality matters in any way that could actually help us build an understanding of what the Australian TOO is. The precautionary principle is an absolute joke, it's applied willy nilly without any true rhyme or reason, it's often ignored when it really shouldn't be and often invoked when it shouldn't. That's not a reason to just kill everything off of Commons. We have nothing proving anything related to Australian TOO and that is the very root of this DR. If you delete these images on the pretence that the Aboriginal flag case is proof of something it's not, you will be the cause of us loosing a lot more than just some road signs. Fry1989 eh? 00:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly the sections you talk about are regarding the Design Act and how it interacts with the copyright act, and what you can do without infringing copyright nothing to do with TOO. Secondly as you and the judge point out the situation changed "in relation to actions after 1 October 1990, the new definition applied"; it is not uncommon for rules to change over time, the US is a case of what once were PD works reacquiring protection. Given all "actions" on here are "after 1 October 1990" that part is not relevant anyway. What can not be ignored by us is that the judge ruled the work had a copyright and Mr Thomas was the owner of that copyright and we have no reason to assume that the same judge would not rule the same way in relation to any of the above, and therefore following the COM:PCP we should delete them, most of them can be uploaded to enwp as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia}} anyway so I don't really see what the problem is anyway. LGA talkedits 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- The case does not discuss the matter of TOO at all, and we have no other Australian entries or case law, so we really no nothing at all. We do know that under UK law this would be too simple, and under Australian law it probably was for at least 19 years, but we do not know what the law is now. The precedent we would set on Commons by deleting these without solid proof of anything but simply based on a simple flag would not just affect my road sign uploads, it would affect practically every single Australian image uploaded on Commons by everyone. And for what??? For a case that completely ignores the issue. We're blind, do you really want a blind person to lead you off a bump when it could be a cliff? Fry1989 eh? 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually no we don't know that any more at all. Not just because the judge stated that the argument was not fully argued and that he would not state his opinion on it, but because according to IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, the courts:
- affirm that there must be some "creative spark" or exercise of "skill and judgment" before a work is sufficiently "original" for the subsistence of copyright
- That language is extremely similar the the United States' requirement of "sufficient creativity". That sort of language actually suggests that on the grounds of threshold of originality, the copyright granted to the Aboriginal flag would be invalid. Everything is pointing to that flag not being truly copyrightable, or at bare minimum not the actual true bar for TOO in Australia. Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You need to stop with the "the argument was not fully argued" line, as I have showed above it is not relevant, the sections in discussion relate to the design act as it existed prior to 1990 and not at the time of the ruling and not now. The judge ruled the image was in copyright on the date of judgement and we have no choice, but to accept that, and if such a simple image in appearance can be copyrightable so can all of these.
- The quote you provide is not at odds with the prior ruling, and indeed complements it, it shows that when an author is thinking about what they are doing (creative spark) and making conscious decisions on how to do it (skill and judgement) the product of that is subject to copyright protection, it does not matter how simple it may look, the exact choice of colours, proportions and shapes in the flag thus make it copyrightable and likewise all of these signs show an "exercise of skill and judgement" in creation so it follows that they are also copyrightable. LGA talkedits 05:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I WON'T stop with the fact that it was not properly argued, because in discussing the matter with the nominator of this DR it appears they agree with me. I am awaiting their further input in this DR, but it is very relevant and you will not shut me up just because you don't think it matters. Fry1989 eh? 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- What was and was not properly argued is not up to us to decided; the fact still remains the court ruled the image was protected by copyright and we have no choice but to accept that; you have not demonstrated why the same court would not rule that these are likewise not copyrighted. LGA talkedits 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It absolutely is up to us to discuss. If that matter was ignored in that case, and more importantly if IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited correctly suggests that the Australian courts as a whole are not properly interpreting the law, then we can not trust the Aboriginal flag case to be our standard bearer of Australian TOO. Now the flag is copyrighted, we can't deny that, it was adjudicated and blah blah blah, but if it is not the true standard bearer of Australian TOO that has massive consequences for Commons and what Australian content we can and can not have. Now shut up if you disagree, you've had your !vote and you're clearly uninterested in anything anyone else has to say including other case law on this matter. Meanwhile, myself and others who aren't so narrow-minded might actually consider things that matter deeply regarding this issue. Fry1989 eh? 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The IceTV v. Nine case does suggest that Australian courts have been misinterpretating the originality criterion, although it is not clear how it should be interpreted instead. Also note that the court suggests that the originality criterion was defined in the Copyright Act 1912 and that it has been unchanged since then; this would seem to contradict the idea that the originality criterion changed in 1990, as suggested above. I think that more investigation is needed. The list of files to delete should probably be revised. See also the discussion at User talk:Fry1989#IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited about the matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which would mean we can not use the Aboriginal Flag as a valid entry for Australian TOO. Without any actual Australian TOO case and based on the language of IceTV v. Nine, it would make sense to interpret Australian TOO as somewhere between British and American levels.
- On the matter of list revision, how do you suggest we do that? Should we strike out all the ones above and give a new list? Or should we just remove the simpler ones from the list and keep the ones we know need to go? Fry1989 eh? 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Few things, firstly from my reading of the flag case, the 1990 event related to relationship between the Copyright and Design laws and nothing to to do with originality it was Fry1989 who claimed that it was about originality. Secondly the IceTV case while potentially useful is about databases and information and not images, finally we as a project have a vested interest in a higher TOO across the world, if we are going to argue that a countries courts have been getting it wrong (as in the flag case) we need a more directly relevant case to base it on than one on a database which are out of scope here anyway. LGA talkedits 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry1989 : No it does not, the flag case is still the best guide on images we have. LGA talkedits 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it does! If the flag case ignored TOO as an argument you CAN NOT claim it's an example of Australian TOO. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to point out a few things. In IceTV v. Nine, both parties agreed that the Weekly Schedule was a copyrighted literary work, and the court seemed to think that the parties' position made it impossible for the court to question this. However, the court ruling implicitly suggests that the court didn't find the Weekly Schedule very original and that the Weekly Schedule therefore isn't protected by copyright. In the flag case, I see the same problem: no one questions that the flag was original, so the court might not have looked into that matter very carefully. Read the "Conclusions" section at the bottom of the IceTV case: the court seems to suggest that Australian courts have done a bad job so far and that you should look at US and Canadian courts instead. In particular note the footnotes, some of which go to court rulings from USA and Canada.
- Also look at the following two cases I've found:
- 2002 (before IceTV v Nine): telephone directories are original works (Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited)
- 2010 (after IceTV v Nine): telephone directories are not original works (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd)
- This change in the interpretation of the originality of a telephone directory definitely indicates that something has happened. I haven't read everything, so I may have overlooked something. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Based on this new information, if appears that both myself and the nominator agree we should keep all files and re-evaluate once we're clear about the matter. Fry1989 eh? 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it does! If the flag case ignored TOO as an argument you CAN NOT claim it's an example of Australian TOO. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The IceTV v. Nine case does suggest that Australian courts have been misinterpretating the originality criterion, although it is not clear how it should be interpreted instead. Also note that the court suggests that the originality criterion was defined in the Copyright Act 1912 and that it has been unchanged since then; this would seem to contradict the idea that the originality criterion changed in 1990, as suggested above. I think that more investigation is needed. The list of files to delete should probably be revised. See also the discussion at User talk:Fry1989#IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited about the matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It absolutely is up to us to discuss. If that matter was ignored in that case, and more importantly if IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited correctly suggests that the Australian courts as a whole are not properly interpreting the law, then we can not trust the Aboriginal flag case to be our standard bearer of Australian TOO. Now the flag is copyrighted, we can't deny that, it was adjudicated and blah blah blah, but if it is not the true standard bearer of Australian TOO that has massive consequences for Commons and what Australian content we can and can not have. Now shut up if you disagree, you've had your !vote and you're clearly uninterested in anything anyone else has to say including other case law on this matter. Meanwhile, myself and others who aren't so narrow-minded might actually consider things that matter deeply regarding this issue. Fry1989 eh? 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- What was and was not properly argued is not up to us to decided; the fact still remains the court ruled the image was protected by copyright and we have no choice but to accept that; you have not demonstrated why the same court would not rule that these are likewise not copyrighted. LGA talkedits 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I WON'T stop with the fact that it was not properly argued, because in discussing the matter with the nominator of this DR it appears they agree with me. I am awaiting their further input in this DR, but it is very relevant and you will not shut me up just because you don't think it matters. Fry1989 eh? 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually no we don't know that any more at all. Not just because the judge stated that the argument was not fully argued and that he would not state his opinion on it, but because according to IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, the courts:
- Based on the language that there must be some "creative spark" or exercise of "skill and judgment" before a work is sufficiently "original" for the subsistence of copyright, I already drew up a list on my talk page of files in this DR which probably would be under the threshold. However, the nominator feels it would be better to withdraw and reassess at a later date. That is of course their right as is for any nominator, and I still hold to my belief these images should be judged on an individual basis. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The full quote of Para 48 of the ICEtv case (quoted in full in the 2010 Telsta case) addresses that issue "It may be that too much has been made, in the context of subsistence, of the kind of skill and labour which must be expended by an author for a work to be an “original” work. The requirement of the Act is only that the work originates with an author or joint authors from some independent intellectual effort.". While a few of the images may appear to be similar or identical to signs in use in other countries signs I can't in all honesty find one that would not have required at least "some independent intellectual effort" to produce and therefore still think that the best place for ALL of these is to upload them to enwp where they can for the most part be hosted PD-ineligible-USonly or for the few that get over the US TOO a claim of Fair use can be made, that way they can all be kept in one place. LGA talkedits 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- But they can't all be kept in one place, because even if every sign in this list had to be deleted, there are many Australian signs that are unquestionably too simple and can stay on Commons. Quite frankly I'm disturbed by your narrow focus and inability to understand that this is a bigger issue than just the signs but that it really does affect a lot of Australian content on Commons. Whether you think it matters or not, the nominator feels there is enough question of the validity that they're willing to retract their DR. That should carry some weight in this matter. Moreover, tell me what harm there actually is in holding back until there is a clarification at which point the images can be reviewed? If they have to go then they have to go but at least that way we'll know we're deleting things rightfully and not under questionable assumptions. Why are you so enthused to just get rid of them all now when it could very well be wrong? I don't think you're looking at this with a clear head, or you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss these questions. I'm not trying to be rude, I've made no attempt to hide my disdain for most copyright laws and that most countries' level of TOO is ridiculously strict, but I am not so blind that I'll ignore something being copyrighted when I know for a fact it is. On the opposite side of the coin, you know the flag is copyrighted (as do I), but why are you so adverse to acknowledging there does appear to be some doubt here as to the validity of that copyright based on TOO? Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because I am seeing nothing to support that doubt; the two cases you quote support the copyright status of the flag and these images, if all that is needed is "some independent intellectual effort" as the requirement of the Act for protection (as the quote from both court cases says) then you need to show how the the flag and/or these images don't have that and you have not done so. I agree that it is very frustrating for the project that the TOO for Australia is so low but in my view more harm is done to the project by keeping images that are not unquestionably free to use than is gained by keeping them here when they can be easily hosted at enwp. LGA talkedits 07:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I can't still understand how some users nominate traffic signs for deletion. Most of the traffic signs derive from the United States' MUTCD (which released all those signs to the public domain, see here) and other symbols and characters are obviously too simple to be copyrighted, apart of being part of universal codes of signs and public information symbols. It goes beyond how the ToO in Australia can be... - Fma12 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because I am seeing nothing to support that doubt; the two cases you quote support the copyright status of the flag and these images, if all that is needed is "some independent intellectual effort" as the requirement of the Act for protection (as the quote from both court cases says) then you need to show how the the flag and/or these images don't have that and you have not done so. I agree that it is very frustrating for the project that the TOO for Australia is so low but in my view more harm is done to the project by keeping images that are not unquestionably free to use than is gained by keeping them here when they can be easily hosted at enwp. LGA talkedits 07:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- But they can't all be kept in one place, because even if every sign in this list had to be deleted, there are many Australian signs that are unquestionably too simple and can stay on Commons. Quite frankly I'm disturbed by your narrow focus and inability to understand that this is a bigger issue than just the signs but that it really does affect a lot of Australian content on Commons. Whether you think it matters or not, the nominator feels there is enough question of the validity that they're willing to retract their DR. That should carry some weight in this matter. Moreover, tell me what harm there actually is in holding back until there is a clarification at which point the images can be reviewed? If they have to go then they have to go but at least that way we'll know we're deleting things rightfully and not under questionable assumptions. Why are you so enthused to just get rid of them all now when it could very well be wrong? I don't think you're looking at this with a clear head, or you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss these questions. I'm not trying to be rude, I've made no attempt to hide my disdain for most copyright laws and that most countries' level of TOO is ridiculously strict, but I am not so blind that I'll ignore something being copyrighted when I know for a fact it is. On the opposite side of the coin, you know the flag is copyrighted (as do I), but why are you so adverse to acknowledging there does appear to be some doubt here as to the validity of that copyright based on TOO? Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The full quote of Para 48 of the ICEtv case (quoted in full in the 2010 Telsta case) addresses that issue "It may be that too much has been made, in the context of subsistence, of the kind of skill and labour which must be expended by an author for a work to be an “original” work. The requirement of the Act is only that the work originates with an author or joint authors from some independent intellectual effort.". While a few of the images may appear to be similar or identical to signs in use in other countries signs I can't in all honesty find one that would not have required at least "some independent intellectual effort" to produce and therefore still think that the best place for ALL of these is to upload them to enwp where they can for the most part be hosted PD-ineligible-USonly or for the few that get over the US TOO a claim of Fair use can be made, that way they can all be kept in one place. LGA talkedits 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --A.Savin 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone must someday close this one, so I'll do. The signs obviously do not contain just letters or simple geometric shapes, so {{PD-trivial}} is an invalid license for them. If there is an issue that certain or all public information symbols are PD, this must be mentioned in the license template used for the files, which is not the case here. --A.Savin 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Restored and reopened per COM:UDEL and with Savin's agreement on his talk. INeverCry 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- This wasn't supposed to be re-opened as a whole, they're supposed to be individually reviewed. That was the consensus leaning at unDR and the nominator who retracted. This should be closed. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Files will be individually reviewed. INeverCry 18:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)