Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Utrecht_-_20212279_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#France: sculptural work by George Henry Paulin (d. 1962). Eleassar (t/p) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as no FoP in France Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial Yann (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Idem above.
requested by uploader Kowelenzer (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- All these photos and below are in public domain and can´t be deleted. --Schängel (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality Kowelenzer (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel in the de:wp Kowelenzer (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schänge Kowelenzer (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schänge Kowelenzer (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Quite OK for me. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- No reason for the deletion of a photo in public domain. --Schängel (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
requested by uploader because of bad quality - certifyed by User:Schängel Kowelenzer (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a bad faith DR -- the uploader, the nom and L' empereur Charles are all the same person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
privacy violation of a minor; out of project scope MoiraMoira (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: and possible privacy violation of a minor, not uploaded by the user himself, out of scope Trijnsteltalk 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is NOT the work of the uploader, it is the work of Mr F. Thompson and there is no indication that any of the criteria for {{PD-Australia}} are meet and any the claim that the creator died before 1955 is not backed up with any proof. This flag is clearly over any TOO in Australia which is very low as shown by the copyright in the Aboriginal flag consisting of only two rectangles and a circle and other judicial rulings. LGA talkedits 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- You are the ONLY person in this DR who thinks that there is enough doubt under the precautionary principle for these to be deleted. EVERYBODY else either says you're wrong, or didn't comment. You are trying to attach a requirement of "proof" to the precautionary principle that DOES NOT EXIST. The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not "solid proof one way or the other", and you have not provided any valid reasonings for significant doubt. Let it go!
- Keep as an abusive DR with no substance whatsoever. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I can't say I agree with Yann's speedy closure. IMO this isn't exactly a clear cut case, and certainly merits at least some discussion (if not to delete, then definitely to establish precedence for future cases). -FASTILY 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg. Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep, the flag's designer died in 1935,[1][2] so this is out of copyright in Australia. --Avenue (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to Avenue for resolving. LGA talkedits 08:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is NOT the work of the uploader, it is the work of Mr F. Thompson and there is no indication that any of the criteria for {{PD-Australia}} are meet and any the claim that the creator died before 1955 is not backed up with any proof. This flag is clearly over any TOO in Australia which is very low as shown by the copyright in the Aboriginal flag consisting of only two rectangles and a circle and other judicial rulings. LGA talkedits 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- You are the ONLY person in this DR who thinks that there is enough doubt under the precautionary principle for these to be deleted. EVERYBODY else either says you're wrong, or didn't comment. You are trying to attach a requirement of "proof" to the precautionary principle that DOES NOT EXIST. The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not "solid proof one way or the other", and you have not provided any valid reasonings for significant doubt. Let it go!
- Keep as an abusive DR with no substance whatsoever. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I can't say I agree with Yann's speedy closure. IMO this isn't exactly a clear cut case, and certainly merits at least some discussion (if not to delete, then definitely to establish precedence for future cases). -FASTILY 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For christ's sake not again. This is positively ridiculous and a witch hunt on the part of LGA. It is a fact that we will never know the time of death for the author. It's also a fact that we know the time of creation, and we know the Australian Government's own life expectancy, and we know that there were two world wars, and we know despite LGA's rather false comparison of the life expectancy of several prime ministers that this man would not have received the same standard of care as a head of government. Everything is pointing to him having died before 1955, and nothing other than pure assumption has been provided to the contrary. The precautionary principle applies in this situation because of the lack of knowledge about the time of death, it was created for these uncertain circumstances. The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt" to demand a file be deleted, which is language akin to court requirements of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which demands not just 51% over 49% but rather a clear obvious direction of one probability over the other. It does not demand conclusive proof one way or the other, no matter how much LGA can pretend it does. There is no reason for significant doubt here, and this is the most obvious PP-related keep I have ever seen. It's laughable to me we are even entertaining LGA's near-extremist obsession with getting this file deleted. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- COM:L requires files hosted on commons to be either freely licensed, or are in the public domain in the source country, there is no disagreement on the fact this file does not have a free licence, that leaves the question of is the work PD in Australia, the only way it can be is if the creator died prior to 1955. Fry1989 claims that as this was created in 1901 and due to two World Wars the chances of Mr Thompson living past 1954 is "extremely minuscule." and therefore it must be {{PD-Australia}}. I have on the other-hand shown with the government's own statistics (provided by Fry1989) that in fact 1 in 4 15 year old boys in 1901 would have lived to 1962 and therefore a similar ratio of 22 year olds in 1901 would have lived past 1954. I can also show that in 1901 the median age of men in Australia was 23. Then there is a report from the European Commission (here) which states "only material from as far as pre-1870 may relatively safely be assumed to be in the public domain.", which is based on the 70pma in use in Europe so needs slight adjustment for the 50pma in use in Australia at the time, but even adding 20 years gets us to 1890 for Australia. I also note that Fry1989 claims above that "we will never know the time of death for the author" this again is not necessarily the case Fry1989 could if he so choose do a search of the Births, deaths and marriages registries in Australia for his death.
- I believe that I have demonstrated very clearly that it can not be assumed that someone who produced a work in 1901 will have died prior to 1954 thus making the work PD and that without further information that there does indeed exist "significant doubt" that this work does indeed meet the criteria for {{PD-Australia}} and if it can't be shown that it does meet the criteria then it should be deleted. LGA talkedits 08:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- LGA if checking the registrar is so simple and could clear this all up in a matter of moments, why didn't you do that long ago? Why do I have to do it? Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the file. See COM:EVID. --Avenue (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't excuse the nominator from being lazy! I didn't even think of the idea of a registrar but clearly LGA did, and the fact their too lazy to even check it and is expecting me to do it for them speaks more about them then anything else. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The nominator was very clear about what their concerns were, and has given suggestions on how you can address them. That's more than most do, and certainly does not justify you calling them names. Also please try harder to understand people's points before you respond. IMO your recent posts here have all been disruptive, not constructive.
- Once again, if you want us to keep this image, it is your responsibility (not the nominator's) to provide sufficient evidence that it is free. That is our official policy. If you disagree with it, you can work to change the policy. Abusing people in an attempt to get them to do your work for you is not acceptable behaviour. --Avenue (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Abusing people? This whole thing is an abuse that we have to go through this a 3rd time in under a week! I'm not stupid and I know our policies, but that does not absolve the nominator from the most basic of effort when they think of something that others haven't. In any case, I will search it once their upgrades are over and access to the records are available. Fry1989 eh? 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, abusing people, as in calling them lazy. The repeated DRs are due to the first closing admin requesting individual DRs for the remaining files, and the second closure being overly hasty; not any inappropriate behaviour by the nominator. And once again, our policy requires those who want to keep the file to establish that it is free, not the nominator. IMO the nominator is responsible for explaining why they've nominated the file (in this case, why they think it's unfree), but nothing else. --Avenue (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why is this so incredibly difficult for you to understand my point? Which is; LGA thought of something I didn't which could aide in this DR. They could have done the most basic of due diligence and search it themselves and that could have cleared this up in an instant (if the necessary information is recorded). Instead, LGA abdicated that and somehow expected me to do something I didn't even think of. How am I supposed to do something that I didn't even think of, and how is it fair that this file could have been deleted because I didn't think of it, had I not been notified of the idea, and it very well could have saved the file? How is that fair that the nominator could hold back information to keep their nomination going the way they want it to? That you're excusing it is ridiculous to me. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I believe I fully understand your point; I just completely disagree with it. LGA thought of something that could help, and suggested that you might like to do it, since you want the image kept. Far from being grateful, you seem to be suggesting that they thought of it during the last DR but didn't tell you then. I see no evidence of that. Please assume good faith.
- If you want us to continue hosting the image, it is your responsibility to confirm and document that it is free. That seems fair to me. --Avenue (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe you do. I'm not going to argue it with you any further because you fail to understand that this is not about LGA, this is about my wider disdain for your particular interpretation of the burden of proof in a hypothetical sense and the inaction it excuses. I'm thankful LGA thought of this and mentioned it because I wouldn't have thought of it myself. Fry1989 eh? 05:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why is this so incredibly difficult for you to understand my point? Which is; LGA thought of something I didn't which could aide in this DR. They could have done the most basic of due diligence and search it themselves and that could have cleared this up in an instant (if the necessary information is recorded). Instead, LGA abdicated that and somehow expected me to do something I didn't even think of. How am I supposed to do something that I didn't even think of, and how is it fair that this file could have been deleted because I didn't think of it, had I not been notified of the idea, and it very well could have saved the file? How is that fair that the nominator could hold back information to keep their nomination going the way they want it to? That you're excusing it is ridiculous to me. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, abusing people, as in calling them lazy. The repeated DRs are due to the first closing admin requesting individual DRs for the remaining files, and the second closure being overly hasty; not any inappropriate behaviour by the nominator. And once again, our policy requires those who want to keep the file to establish that it is free, not the nominator. IMO the nominator is responsible for explaining why they've nominated the file (in this case, why they think it's unfree), but nothing else. --Avenue (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Abusing people? This whole thing is an abuse that we have to go through this a 3rd time in under a week! I'm not stupid and I know our policies, but that does not absolve the nominator from the most basic of effort when they think of something that others haven't. In any case, I will search it once their upgrades are over and access to the records are available. Fry1989 eh? 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't excuse the nominator from being lazy! I didn't even think of the idea of a registrar but clearly LGA did, and the fact their too lazy to even check it and is expecting me to do it for them speaks more about them then anything else. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the file. See COM:EVID. --Avenue (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- LGA if checking the registrar is so simple and could clear this all up in a matter of moments, why didn't you do that long ago? Why do I have to do it? Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- What does the European Commission's report have anything to do with Australian law? Nothing, zero, zilch to do with Australia. European law is far different to Australia's and trying to compare apple with a carrot just shows that the WMF needs to have trained experts on laws, such as copyright, and not armchair "experts" on Commons.
- From what I've found so far is that F. Thompson had the book store in 1888, the competition was in 1900. Another thing that we don't know about, what the condition of the competition were, did Thompson get to hold the copyright or was it handed over to the Evening Herald/Herald Standard?
- At the moment the Births, deaths and marriages registry in Victoria is currently down for the weekend but IIRC that you have to pay a fee to access the records. Bidgee (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- If he ran the bookstore in 1888, the extra 12 years would put his death by 1954 beyond significant doubt for me. Where did you find this? --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, if he owned the bookshop in 1888 it would make it unlikely he lived to 1955, the only thing I have found is this but it does list a book-store from 1888 but only says F Thompson from 1905, may be a family business which he inherited or the owner retired and he bought it out in 1905 ? LGA talkedits 11:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is also this which lists a Mr T Thompson at the address in 1895. LGA talkedits 11:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- So now even you admit it is unlikely he lived past 1955, so why are you still pursuing this when that perfectly meets the requirements of PCP? I think this is more of a conquest for victory than anything else for you. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, there you go again not reading what I said; why don't you try again and you will see that I said if he was the owner of the bookstore in 1888 that would change something, at the moment it has not been shown he was. LGA talkedits 20:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- So now even you admit it is unlikely he lived past 1955, so why are you still pursuing this when that perfectly meets the requirements of PCP? I think this is more of a conquest for victory than anything else for you. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- If he ran the bookstore in 1888, the extra 12 years would put his death by 1954 beyond significant doubt for me. Where did you find this? --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete There's significant doubt about whether the author would be dead by 1954, as shown by LGA's statisics.and IMO they haven't met it. --Avenue (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've struck my delete !vote for now, based on Bidgee's 1888 date above. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've now tracked down some genealogical research on the flag's creator than IMO means we should keep the the image. Mr F. Thompson, of 165 Bourke St, was actually Frederick Thompson (1860-1935),[3] so he was 39 years old when he entered his flag design in the competition, and he died two decades before the 1955 cut-off date. The flag is therefore out of copyright in Australia. (He did have a son, also named Frederick Thompson (1893-1978), but he was too young to have been the "bookseller and newsagent" who won the prize.[4]) --Avenue (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've struck my delete !vote for now, based on Bidgee's 1888 date above. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- If I've explained this once, I've explained it a million times and it couldn't be any clearer: The precautionary principle does not require solid proof!!!! It doesn't. You can't say it does when it explicitly says the opposite. And it specifically applies in this case because we do not know the time of death. 50%-50% or 51%-49% is essentially "I say he didn't and you say he did", but we don't have that, what we have is one side with supporting evidence that he did die before he had to and the other side delusionally still trying to insist on a nonexistent standard of proof with no evidence of their own to the contrary and false comparisons. There is zero reason for "significant doubt", a standard higher than 50%-50%, a standard which requires evidence on why we should doubt his time of death was in time. We have everything we need to keep this, everything that meets the requirements of the precautionary principle and this obsession on the part of LGA is bizarre. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- COM:PRP says nothing about proof as such. COM:EVID does, and it says "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed [...]". That is what I meant when I referred to the burden of proof. Of course "reasonably" is a vague word, so there's plenty of scope for opinion there.
- Your definition of "significant doubt" is very different from what I would take as a natural reading of the phrase. I would contrast it with "insignificant doubt", which I would equate to less than about a 5% to 10% chance than something is false. More than a 10% probability seems like significant doubt to me. I see this as consistent with other approaches, e.g. Jim's cut-off of creation post 1885, where it would require a fairly unlikely (but not very unlikely) set of circumstances for the material to be in copyright in 70 years pma countries. --Avenue (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Per this reliable source, "only material from as far as pre-1870 may relatively safely be assumed to be in the public domain." This means that per reliable sources there is significant doubt that post-1870 orphan works are in the public domain! --Eleassar (t/p) 19:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Keep per Avenue. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- That means nothing. Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- See above. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- That means nothing. Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the "delete everything unless 100% proof club" is here. It will be interesting to see if impartial judgement will win out in this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete For 70 pma countries I generally use 1885 as the cut-off date. That could be a person born in 1860, creating the work at age 25 and living to age 83. Certainly one could pick an earlier date, but I think 1885 meets the "significant doubt" test which we use. I think 1870 is pushing it too far -- that might be a person born in 1850, creating a work at age 20 and living to be 93, but that would be a very long life for an 1850 birth. Of course, if you want to push it to the realm of possibility, no photograph is safe -- a person born in 1830, taking a photograph at age ten and living to be 113 covers the whole period of photography, but is not very likely.
We have a slightly different rule here -- creator died before 1955. Since we are told it was created in 1901, if we had a 25 year old creator, born in 1876, he would have to live to age 79. That's right at the edge for me, but to be consistent with my 1885 rule for 70 pma I have to say delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Based on that (and if I understood you properly that your cutoff is 80 years of age), then the file would just be brought back in about a year's time anyways. Why wait? Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think there is much doubt that it is in the public domain. I think this looks more and more like a hunt for some editors. More over the arguments about the originality of this in the first place is hair splitting, at the best. Yann (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Yann, I do hope that comment was not directed at me -- I have zero ill will against Fry (whom, frankly, I consider to be one of my friends here on Commons). Just so we're clear: I opened this discussion so we could establish some firm community precedence/clarification/consensus regarding the relationship between these proposed flags and Commons:TOO#Australia. -FASTILY 01:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Question When should this flag be undeleted? --84.61.176.82 07:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- While I freely admit that my 1885 date for 70 pma countries in 2013 (explained above) is arbitrary and could be argued in either direction, it has served me well and I don't think it has ever been challenged. If we use the same calculation -- 1885 for a 1943 "magic number" -- then we would use 1897 for the 1955 date twelve years later.
Since this flag is from 1901, we would wait four years.Strikeout per Avenue's correction below. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)- 1897??? The designer would have to be 4 years old! You can't be serious. Fry1989 eh? 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fry1989, I think you are completely misunderstanding Jim's point.
- Jim, I believe the 1955 date won't shift until 2026. Australian copyright generally expires "50 years after the author's death if pre 1955 or 70 years if post 1955", when the author is known. So I think undeleting the flag in 2030 would be consistent with your guideline (if we can only confirm the 1901 date, not the 1888 one). --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Arguing that "the uploader wrongly attributed the copyright himself" is not a valid reason to start a deletion request. After trying to find data about the author (in Australian websites like this) with no success, I think this flag should be kept here so the dead of death of Mr. Thomspon is completely unknown. - Fma12 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- 1897??? The designer would have to be 4 years old! You can't be serious. Fry1989 eh? 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- While I freely admit that my 1885 date for 70 pma countries in 2013 (explained above) is arbitrary and could be argued in either direction, it has served me well and I don't think it has ever been challenged. If we use the same calculation -- 1885 for a 1943 "magic number" -- then we would use 1897 for the 1955 date twelve years later.
Comment as the Original Uploader, I was not aware of any of the Australian copyright laws at the time of the upload and it was originally on en.wp. As the Commons, we not only have to apply Aussie law, since it is an Australian work, but also American law. In the US, while there is a provision of copyright law that extends works 120 years after publication if the death of an author is unknown, however, this only works for unpublished works. I am looking at http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/16729511725265eae2b3ee1.pdf now and I do not see anything where what happens if the author is known, but the date of death is not known. I really think we will have to seek special advice from the Australian Copyright Council and I will send an email in the next few days to see what they say. So either way, this flag is free in the US but with this odd situation, just not sure about Australia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should there be information in the registrar of Victoria for this name, this may all be averted. Fry1989 eh? 05:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can not afford the near 35 dollars it's gonna cost to search through those records just to save a file on Commons, so they're of no use to me. As far as I'm concerned however, this is still an obvious one clear as sky, and I know I'm not the only one who sees what I see. We have everything on our side except the unnecessary and overzealous demand of a conclusive time of death. The man died before 1955, I'll bet my sanity on it. Fry1989 eh? 21:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should there be information in the registrar of Victoria for this name, this may all be averted. Fry1989 eh? 05:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks to Avenue for resolving. LGA talkedits 08:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD. Pleclown (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ce fichier ne doit pas être sur Commons (erreur de ma part, c'est un logo). MrRiker30 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation and uploader request JuTa 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
My goodness, this is never been published under a free permission ... Copyright infringement 188.104.112.109 22:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
(now File:Klaus Götze RKt.jpg)
Not own work. No idea who the artist is. Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe it is own work after all. The (new) user who uploaded this seems to be a 73-year-old veteran photographer and graphic designer who uploaded some of his own works (and does not speak English, unfortunately). See Commons:Forum#Löschung von Bilddateien for those who can read German. Using OTRS for such files was already suggested there. User:Doc.Heintz acts as some kind of mentor for this new user. --Rosenzweig τ 22:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see. I hope that this will be sorted out at Commons:Forum, then. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Leider bekomme ich diese Diskusion nicht auf Deutsch zu sehen. Bei der Sprachauswahl öffnet sich ein Fenster und die Auswahl Deutsch hier bewirkt auch keine Übersetzung.--Eberhardklaus (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Die Sprachauswahl wirkt sich auf Inhalte aus, die in mehreren Sprachen vorgehalten werden, dies sind i.d.R. Hilfeseiten oder auch Mitteilungen an Nutzer (die Kästen auf deiner Diskussionsseite). Diskussionen unter Nutzern werden nicht automatisch übersetzt, diese erscheinen in der Sprache, in der sie verfasst wurden. Nachdem du aber per E-Mail versichert hast, dass du der Urheber bist, wird die Datei nicht gelöscht werden. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Book covers need OTRS-permission in Commons, Delete Motopark (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS is in progess here. Keep --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Permission was received, OTRS # 2013120510010816 --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS is in progess here.
Kept: OTRS was received Rosenzweig τ 11:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Source offline/unreachable JurgenNL (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://web.archive.org/web/20131205104733/http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%208-4/Koch.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source offline/unreachable JurgenNL (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://web.archive.org/web/20131205104733/http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%208-4/Koch.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source offline/unreachable JurgenNL (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://web.archive.org/web/20131205104733/http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%208-4/Koch.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source offline/unreachable JurgenNL (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://web.archive.org/web/20131205104733/http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%208-4/Koch.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source offline/unreachable JurgenNL (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://web.archive.org/web/20131205104733/http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%208-4/Koch.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source not fond (404 error) JurgenNL (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000272978.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source not found (404 error) JurgenNL (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000802746.pdf. — George Serdechny 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source not found (404 error) JurgenNL (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278544.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Source not found (404 error) JurgenNL (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000278544.pdf . — George Serdechny 11:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a derivative of the screen (TV?) content. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This logo is the trademark of Department of Rapid Transit Systems, a division of Taipei City government [5]. It shouldn't be claimed as personal work and be released as sharework here. SElefant (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
SupportLtdccba (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio shizhao (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TheRedPenOfDoom as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: as a studio shot, claims of self creation seem highly implausible Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree it is a copvio. The site this picture came from (aside from horrible layout) has a copyright notice of Ajaz khan. No mention of the CC license. As the user name is very different, I doubt the uploader owns the copyright and therefore can't place it under a CC license. --Rsberzerker (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a useless representation of chemical compounds. The chemical structures are hopelessly indecipherable with bonds and atom labels that are overlapping, crossing, stretched, etc. ChemNerd (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, entirely agree with the comments Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC
- Delete While I think it is a noble attempt at adding to the Commons, the execution falls a little short of being educationally useful. --Rsberzerker (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: You may think that it is useless, but it is, in fact, in use, and therefore cannot be deleted for that reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a useless representation of chemical compounds. The chemical structures are hopelessly indecipherable with bonds and atom labels that are overlapping, crossing, stretched, etc. The image is currently unused. ChemNerd (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hypoglaunine C,D,E.png now that it is unused. Ed (Edgar181) 13:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
unusable quality Jim Derby (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The picture is rather blurry. I've seen worse, but I think this is a little short of educationally useful. --Rsberzerker (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
DW, logo above TOO. Leyo 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of something almost certainly NOT freely licensed or in the public domain. As such, as copyvio. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern stamps of Mynamar/Burma presumably still in copyright. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Government works have a fifty year copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Taken in Brazil in 1940 by ABI photographer "Ferreira Júnior" (ABI stands for pt:Associação Brasileira de Imprensa), licensed with {{PD-Brazil-media}} (1940 + 1 + 70 = 2011). Not in PD in Brazil on URAA-date 01.01.1996, copyrights restored +95 years = 2035. Gunnex (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
reason=wrong file name, replaced by uploaded File:Health_Expenditure_per_capita_OECD_2013.pngZH8000 (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of other linked file. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please keep in mind that it is a waste of time and resources to upload a file a second time when all that is needed is to use {{Rename}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure what the purpose of this upload was, but it appears to be a personal photo. The commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The logo is a trademark of Railway Reconstruction Bureau, a subsidiary of Taiwan government. It shouldn't be claimed as uploader's personal work and released as GFDL. SElefant (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Infringement Mr.Rosewater (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Already deleted by IneverCry. Apparently it was nominated more than once. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
mauvaise qualité et enfant mineur possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macassar (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T08:07:41 (UTC)
- Delete While limited uploads of personal pictures to be used on a user's page are generally allowed, it has been roughly 8 months since the upload. Therefore, it is safe to assume it will never be used that way. The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The file is marked as cc-by-sa-3.0, however I see no evidence of such license for the file on the source website or elsewhere. Moreover, a version of the video is uploaded by simpleshow on their youtube channel (video) and is licensed under Standard YouTube License which is not creative commons or free by any means. The user has another file uploaded which is in the same situation. CyberXRef (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to inform you that the license on the simpleshow youtube channel is "Creative Commons" now (video), the cc-by-sa-3.0 is also shown within the video file. So there is no legal issue anymore. - Noah Colon
Restored per above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This and all photos by user in Category:Media needing categories as of 4 December 2013 - out of scope - looks like holiday snaps Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
low quality selfie Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wiki bronze medal.png: such derivatives are not allowed by the ECB. There is also no evidence of permission for the image of the camel head. Eleassar (t/p) 09:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Seems to be more like content designated for Wikipedia, even though its notability is not clear. Niklem (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed on the out of scope. It looks like a wikipedia article, but it is not media. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Complex logo. Not own work, wrong license, probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I see no claim that it is "own work". In fact, just the opposite. The license, based on a Commons template, also indicates it is in the public domain, and therefore not a copyvio. Still needs to be categorized by someone more familiar with that subject. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, not own work, but why a University logo would be in the public domain? Yann (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is a public, state funded university -- see Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu. Therefore I think it falls under the following provision of the template as a "state organization" -- official symbols of the State, public authorities and organizations, such as armorial bearings, seals, flags, emblems, shields, badges and medals. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 10:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It's been about a year since the upload and it is still unused, especially on the user's page. The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
unused user pic 91.66.153.214 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not "The Nightwatch" by Rembrandt. Compare with this which is sourced directly from the Rijksmuseum. Because the original uploader gave no source and it's not used in any projects i would vote for deletion because the source is not clear. 
Husky (talk to me) 11:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- This version was probably painted by Johan van der Linde (1887-1956). See http://explore.rkd.nl/explore/images/106278. But as it is a copy it might be in the PD. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Carefully comparing this to a known Rembrant version, it is a copy. A good one, but there are small differences. If the Linde theory is correct, and he died in 1956, then it is not yet in the public domain (Neatherlands is life + 70 years so 2026). But since no author is provided, we can't be sure. Based on Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle we can not host it on the Commons. A shame, since it's a good painting. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please remember that although we follow Bridgeman with {{PD-Art}}, in many countries even a photograph of a PD work has its own copyright -- a painted copy has one everywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Own work, original research, notabitily not shown --Vanuan (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Original Research is not prohibited on Commons, but own work without a clear educationpurpose is. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted image. I doubt whether the uploader is the painter. In 2011, uploader stated on his discussion page 1. that the painting was bought on flea market for 20 €, 2. that the painter didn't sign his work properly and so would not be able (or allowed?) to claim his rights, 3. that the painter K.Meese (?) is commonly unknown and the image was cheap so that it can't be discussed, 4. that by publishing the image the author should be given the opportunity to sign up, and 5. that the publication is in the interest of art history. These statements seem to me strange, false and contradictory. Dehio (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: They also violate COM:PRP. And then there's the heavy green cast to the whole image, including the frame. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Problematic copyright status. Metadata for the image states it is taken by Ruud Mol, not Francis Flinch (although, that may be a different names for one person - than it is legit). However - there is also a copyright notice for organization names "mediadesk.avdd" in metadata. RussianTrooper (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't belive, that a copyright expires only because 2 copyrighted images on a photo. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The corresponding article was deleted on English Wikipedia: w:Alistair Fairbrother. Out of COM:SCOPE unless another one is created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture of a living artist, Flavio de Faveri (born in 1930). There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando foto con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by a living artist, Willem Vermandere (born in 1940). There's no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Statue by Florent Devos (1922-1997). There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope/Nonsense Savhñ 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Aww but dem chillies Test9898 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stefan4 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: cover artwork Is the painting out of copyright? Dschwen (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hm. Seems so. A quick Google search found File:C W Eckersberg 1841 - Kvinde foran et spejl.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for finding this. I'd say the text overlay is below the threshold of originality and would suggest a Keep. --Dschwen (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for finding this. I'd say the text overlay is below the threshold of originality and would suggest a
out of scope - unused book cover, with a painting on it, which we have in unobscured copies Pibwl (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
wrong construction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T20:06:33 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
wrong construction Tomruen (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Mozambique: 1955 architecture (the copyright lasts for 70 years in Mozambique). Eleassar (t/p) 14:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have some difficulty understanding that this picture showing nothing but ruined concrete structures has some kind of copyright.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even though in ruins, the architecture is still recognisable. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Delete, at least until Mozambique changes its copyright law.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree.
- Even though in ruins, the architecture is still recognisable. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment se fait il que le Rhône n'apparaisse pas alors que la Seine et la Loire sont mentionnées? 90.17.190.73 21:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: C'est ne pas la carte de la Rhone, c'est la carte de la Danube. Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
North Macedonia is shown as "Macedonia" 2A02:587:5A0A:B400:3940:FAAD:9C7F:E6A1 18:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept not a reason for deletion. (Complain to the CIA about their 2007 map if you wish) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Statue by a living sculptor, Georges Staes (born in 1927). There no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope/file not legitimately in use. Only appears in a userpage image gallery on one wikiproject, and the uploader doesn't even really know what it is other than to editorialize about it. MSJapan (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- He knows it's a condom, and unless we have other pictures of this particular variety, it seems prudent to Keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
chargé par erreur Annemarie Ledoux (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The logo on the flag isn't free, so can the photo be free? Thanks. YurB (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The logo should be free as well per {{PD-UA-exempt}} (logo of an institution) — NickK (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know it, thanks! --YurB (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: .. Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS. Stefan4 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Low quality selfie, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, this is a personal image that is unused on any project, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
less believable that this little file is an "own work" 91.66.153.214 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfree in USA: the photographer didn't die before 1946. See {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Stefan4 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
We have this symbol in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Linked to vandalism Fixertool (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Bad category, unused image. Not educationally useful. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Useless without a full name. 91.66.153.214 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
pornographie dans le site infusions 92.149.220.190 00:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A little gross, but within scope. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Meine Saline Infusion.jpg, File:My Saline Injection.jpg and File:Meine Hodensackinfusion.jpg
[edit]
Nicht mehr aktuell. Hardo Brinkmann 02:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Expert19612005: I see you have uploaded over several of these photos with pictures of a car. I have reverted these changes. If you wish to have these deleted as a courtesy, then I will happily delete them, but uploading over them is not helpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Consider deleting the picture of the car as unsourced and unlicensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Consider keeping these three images. The images are within scope and interesting. Sexynudesuploaded (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. --JuTa 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
according to [6], architect Norman Foster still alive. --~ Fernrohr (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Moscow_City_16.05.2008_%281%29.jpg){kind=link}
- Fraudulent nomination calling the name of an unrelated person. The design of w:Naberezhnaya Tower (foreground right) is credited to nine persons of British, Russian and Turkish citizenship [7]. None of their names matches either "Norman" or "Foster". The only Briton on the list is Paul Dunn <then> of RTKL London, author and promoter of the initial concept. RTKL was not associated with either Foster or Foster+Partners. Foster+Partners' only public draft for w:Moscow International Business Center was scrapped years ago (although the company still tout it as "will be..."). The design of the twin Capital Cities (background left), is credited to en:Erick van Egeraat.
- Note that the DR linked in the nomination does not mention Sir Norman or his business in any way, and can not possibly assert his well-being. At any rate, a discussion held ten months ago is not a proof of "still alive" now. But there is plenty of other evidence that Sir Norman is, in fact, alive. NVO (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
no Freedom of Panorama in Russian Federation. Obviously modern buildings BaseSat (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
no Freedom of Panorama in Russian Federation BaseSat (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
File needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.153.214 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Spoken wiki by myself. I'd like to see it removed. Grashoofd (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Uploaded 5 years ago under an irrevocable free license. File is in use. INeverCry 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Image is Inappropriate Content 68.4.81.49 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep DR is innapropriate. Image is "only" one of the world masterpieces. Tm (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The requester should read at least this: [[8]]. 82.141.67.208 18:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
khong thich 123.23.40.234 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Dont like it? Dont look at it! Also this is a world masterpiece. Tm (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Oh God, not again! Some people should look up the word 'Art' in a dictionary before coming here. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
J'ai des enfants mineures 81.66.155.156 11:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: A 1866 painting widely in use. Two previous DRs resolved as kept. Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Possible copyright violation as this is a picture of artwork. Alaney2k (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Canada has freedom of panorama. From the Canadian Copyright Act, section 32.2.1.b.ii:
- It is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work ... a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building.
- The star very much constitutes a "work of artistic craftsmanship" and it definitely "permanently situated in a public place", which in this case is embedded into the sidewalk near the Roy Thompson Hall. Tabercil (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not own work. This symbol is seen on various dangerous chemicals in Europe. No idea if it is free for any reason. If it is, then we probably already have a copy of it somewhere anyway. Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Yet another penis picture. Slightly blurry which makes it unlikely to be used on Wikipedia given that we have better images in the same category and there's nothing special about this one. Tabercil (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another guy flashing us. Wknight94 talk 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely useless. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
maybe not bad penis picture, but without author nor copyright info Pibwl (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Probably a copyvio. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not best copyright info. -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted by Alan -FASTILY 08:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. Please also SALT the filename. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not educationally useful. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably it is a copyvio from http://www.flickr.com/photos/federico87/288026460/ but the watermark and metadata get me confused. Maybe they were added while editing the original file. V.Riullop (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
no description, file probably taken from the website. 91.66.153.214 15:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
"Own work" ???? 91.66.153.214 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uncategorized, unused image. Unlikely to be "own work". --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by Malgorzata Chodakowska (*1965) inside the shopping centre QF Quartier in Dresden, sculpture is copyright protected, no freedom of panorama. See http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/30250920 for surroundings etc. Paulae (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. It looks like original non-illustrative work. kismalac 21:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This comes from The Hindu. Thought we had deleted it already. Other images on the EN-Wiki MOHAN Foundation article may be problematic. EricEnfermero (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This image is related to organ donation and Mohan foundation also participated in the event where honorable minister Sheila Dixit is signing the donor card. It is also present in the website of MOHAN Foundation
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not own work. Stefan4 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Tekening- gezicht op Buurkerk, De Dom, Sint Pieterskerk en Oud-Munster, omstreeks 1560, reconstructie door Th.Haakma Wagenaar ( april 1966) - Utrecht - 20212279 - RCE.jpg
[edit]_-_Utrecht_-_20212279_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Utrecht_-_20212279_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Drawing made in 1966 by a building engineer, not PD yet or cc-by-sa Sonty (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
wrong name Detoneva (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
License PD-US is not correct because the work of art is not from the U.S. but was created in Italy by an Italian artist. The sculpture was created in the XVIII century but the image is taken from internet and shows a 3D work of art, so Pd-art should not be applicable too. Postcrosser (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This small "own work" (13 kb) looks like a rip-off from the website . 91.66.153.214 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Should be a copyright infringement 84.159.106.179 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
me estan copiando las fotos con otros nombres Versegovia (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The daily low quality penis picture without any educational usabilty - Wikimedia Commons is not a Website for Exhebitionists! Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently gradients exceed the threshold of originality. Thoughts? -FASTILY 10:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Hi. There was a time that I could name 10 reasons for deleting this image and gradient's shape would have not been part of it. Linear gradient is the simplest form of gradient and everything about it is public property. It was in the last year of the elementary school that we learned how to paint it by hand and apart from the choice of color, there is nothing creative about it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The gradient does not exceed the ToO, it can be easily done with any design tool such as Inkscape or Corel Draw automatically. - Fma12 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, No support of the deletion. (Non-admin closure). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7163440@N04/3313766987 ；This is not the page you're looking for AddisWang (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are really sick. How do you think it was checked by bot? --Алый Король (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Source: © 1999 LiveJournal；The uploader own the copyright? OTRS? AddisWang (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Every page with photos has a sign "Фотографии распространяются на условиях Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." == "Photos released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"--Алый Король (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Andrei Kovaltchuk
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Russia.
- File:Monument to Leonid.jpg
- File:Obolrnsky-Nogotkov.JPG
- File:Petr I monument in Astrakhan-1.jpg
- File:Tyutchev memorial Bryansk.jpg
- File:Гумилевы.jpg
- File:Нормандия-неман москва.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- One more jerk cares about freedom of panorama.--Vissarion (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:City of Capitals
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia
- File:City of Capitals 10th March 2013.JPG
- File:City Of Capitals 20th October 2012.JPG
- File:City Of Capitals 9th May 2012.jpg
- File:Huvudstaden 5 oktober 2007.jpg
- File:MIBC 11th May, 2013.jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (1).jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (2).jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (3).jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (4).jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (5).jpg
- File:Moscow, City of Capitals, 16.05.2008 (6).jpg
- File:Moscow-city (4473157182).jpg
- File:Город столиц 2.jpg
File:Город столиц строится.jpgFile:Городстолиц 231106.jpg- File:Городстолиц2510.jpg
- File:Фото1227.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
BaseSat (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt that we can find something copyrightable at this photo, this or other "building-up" photos? There are only concrete blocks, heap of beams, building cranes and scaffolding. Is there any architectural ideas, design solutions? I think no - such blocks, beams and scaffolding we can see at any building site, until there are no exterior finishing it is a trivial building site - so i think for these images COM:FOP not usable. Dmitry89 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you about these two. I'm removing them from the RfD. --BaseSat (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
We are lacking evidence of permission from the coin designers and presumably also from the photographers. The template {{EEK coin}} can, as the name suggests, only be used for EEK coins but not for EUR coins. See also the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent).
- File:2011 Estonia 10 Euro Obverse.png
- File:2011 Estonia 10 Euro Reverse.png
- File:2011 Estonia 20 Euro Obverse.png
- File:2011 Estonia 20 Euro Reverse.png
Stefan4 (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro banknotes and coins
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons. The banknotes should have a large word "SPECIMEN" written across them.
- File:El bote.JPG
- File:Euro banknotes and coins2.jpg
- File:Euro coins and banknotes.jpg
- File:Euromoenterogsedler.jpg
- File:Euromünzen und Scheine.jpg
- File:Forex kasse.jpg
- File:Forex påse.jpg
- File:Impôt juste.JPG
- File:Paiement euros.jpg
- File:Twenty euro banknote and coins.jpg
- File:Un mucchio di euro.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Any copyright licence which requires Specimen to be written across the image would be incompatible with our requirement that derivative works are allowed. This is the same reason why watermarks can be added by the uploaded but anyone is allowed to remove them. Anti-counterfeit legislation that is not embedded in the copyright of the images should be treated separately, as are trademarks and similar limitations. /94.234.186.39 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The specimen/example marking requirement is only for full-size banknotes, not for images showing only trunkated parts of them. --Denniss (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- In all these images coins are visible too; these are not free. Perhaps the reliefs on coins in File:Twenty euro banknote and coins.jpg and File:Forex kasse.jpg would be de minimis, but for the later case the banknotes are full size in my opinion. However, why do you think that this applies only for full-size banknotes? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The specimen/example marking requirement is only for full-size banknotes, not for images showing only trunkated parts of them. --Denniss (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis non curat praetor (The praetor does not concern himself with trifles) for all images in this DR. — Raoli ✉ (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:DM#Examples, this is definitely not de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." --Eleassar (t/p) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not in this case like a skyscrapers panorama. A set of copyrighted objects (x+y+z) go under de minimis lex. But if the objects are the subject of the photo or not this does not matter to the law then it falls into de minimis. Sure, we need hear other opinions about these files because I don't know in particular the American legislation on the subject. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is not de minimis if the purpose of an image is to show the copyrighted objects. See for example this case. If you think that a panorama image is de minimis, then why didn't the Danish or British courts recently decide that search engine results were de minimis of the searched documents? The search engines were instead fined for using the search results without permission from the authors of the search results (essentially because the European Court of Justice forced the national courts to do so). Here, the entire purpose is to show the banknotes, so the banknotes aren't de minimis. If the permission only is for images which contain the word "specimen", then any image which doesn't contain that word is a copyright violation. Also, a permission which requires a specific watermark to be present is insufficient; see {{Nonderivative}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not in this case like a skyscrapers panorama. A set of copyrighted objects (x+y+z) go under de minimis lex. But if the objects are the subject of the photo or not this does not matter to the law then it falls into de minimis. Sure, we need hear other opinions about these files because I don't know in particular the American legislation on the subject. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I could buy this argument if there was a large number of coins, none of which would be particularly in focus (e.g. [9]). Some images could be kept on this basis, e.g. File:El bote.JPG, File:Forex påse.jpg, File:Twenty euro banknote and coins.jpg, File:Un mucchio di euro.jpg, if the banknotes are ok. For the rest, this is in my opinion not the case. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Those are not de minimis. See e.g. the European Court of Justice case Infopaq v. Danske Dagblades Forening. However, in the case of File:EuroMismatique4.jpg, it is not possible to see any artistic parts of a coin, so that one image doesn't violate any copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:DM#Examples, this is definitely not de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." --Eleassar (t/p) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EuroMismatique4.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted files were Copyright violation. The rest is DM SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Derivative work of coins.
- File:- Money 01 -.jpg
- File:Centimes euro vrac.jpg
- File:Euro muntstukken.png
- File:Eurobox Blue.jpg
- File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg
- File:Wiener Schachtel.png
Stefan4 (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, what is the problem with derivative works of coins ? Lionel Allorge (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are not the copyright holder to the coins, so you can't upload photos of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, after reading COM:EURO, I believe it does not apply to my picture (File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg) because the copyright faces of the euro are a very small part of my picture and therefore, De Minimis should apply. Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- De minimis doesn't depend on the size of the images but on the purpose of the photograph and whether the shown parts are above the threshold of originality. See for example this court ruling from the European Court of Justice. Showing coins is one of the main purposes of the image (the file name even mentions money), and the coins are clearly visible. The coins therefore do not satisfy de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, after reading COM:EURO, I believe it does not apply to my picture (File:Le beurre et l'argent du beurre.jpg) because the copyright faces of the euro are a very small part of my picture and therefore, De Minimis should apply. Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are not the copyright holder to the coins, so you can't upload photos of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coins. Some of them are tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, but as explained at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, that template can only be used for text. A coin is not text. Some of the images do not have permission from the photographers, which a coin always must have.
- File:1 Cent - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:1 Cent - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Benedicto XVI (2005-2013).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:1 Euro - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:1 eurocent 1 pfennig.jpg
- File:1-€-Münze.jpg
- File:10 Cent - Benedicto XVI (2005-2013).jpg
- File:10 Cent - Juan Pablo II (2002-2005).jpg
- File:10 Cent - Sede Vacante (2005).jpg
- File:2-€-Münze.jpg
- File:5 euro cent Slovenie.png
- File:50 cent coin SK Bratislavsky hrad.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Euro coins are not free for Commons: derivative works are not allowed if they are not in the "faithful likeness" and "not detrimental to the image of the euro". See also the previous discussions.[10][11]
- File:Austria 2e.gif
- File:Europa 2009 face.jpg
- File:Europa 2010 face.jpg
- File:Money - The last Cent.jpg
- File:Pièce 1000€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:Pièce 100€ Côté Face.jpg
- File:Pièce 100€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:Pièce 200€ Côté Face.jpg
- File:Pièce 200€ Côté Pile.jpg
- File:The Austrian 25 Euro bimetal coin 'Renewable Energy'.jpg
- File:The Austrian 25 Euro bimetal coin 'Year of Astronomy 2009'.jpg
- File:Tire-Euro-Bad.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coin. One of the files can be saved by reverting to the original revision which doesn't contain any coin and deleting only those revisions which show a coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverted one per Stefan, deleted the other. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Unfree coin.
Stefan4 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Non-free coins.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Delted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Per COM:DW.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins
[edit]Missing permission from engraver. See COM:CUR#Euro.
- File:1 euro 1999 España.jpg
- File:1 euro 2010 España.jpg
- File:1 euro 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:1 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:10 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro 1999 España.jpg
- File:2 euro 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativa EURO 2012 estonia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 austria.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 belgica.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 eslovaquia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 holanda.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 italia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 luxemburgo.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2009 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2011 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2011 portugal.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2012 monaco.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2012 san marino.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2014-1 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo 2014-2 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 bélgica.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 chipre.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 irlanda.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 italia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 malta.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativo EURO 2012 portugal.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2005 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2010 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2011 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2012 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2013 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos 2014 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EMU 2009 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EMU 2009 francia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EURO 2012 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos EURO 2012 francia.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos ROMA 2007 España.jpg
- File:2 euro conmemorativos ROMA 2007 francia.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:20 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:5 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 1999 España.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 2010 España.jpg
- File:50 euro cent 2011 estonia.jpg
- File:Reveal-DX.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no problem in using images of the designs of euro coins. I wrote the european central bank and various central banks of europe. The problem is when you use images of an specific web page. I made the photographs of every coin I uploaded. Euro images CAN BE USED because they DON'T HAVE COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS. European central bank even told me that I could use the images in their web page if I cite them as authors of it. That's even written in their web page!! For all those reasons I think that this topic MUST BE INVESTIGATED BEFORE DELETING THE FILES --Philloven (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Everything you say is true, but not the whole story. At the European Commission web site it says
- "Only the following reproductions are allowed:
- reproductions in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided that they are not detrimental to the image of the euro."
- "Only the following reproductions are allowed:
- This means that you cannot use images of the coins to create parodies of the Euro or any other derivative work. And that means that they are not free enough to keep on Commons. As you will see above, this has been well established over eight DRs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Euro coins are more complex than that. There is one common side, shared by all countries. The European Central Bank owns the copyright to this side of the coins and decides the restrictions, and the conclusion on Commons is that the common side is unfree. Therefore, pictures of the common side may not be uploaded to Commons.
- There is also a national side, for which the restrictions depend on the country of issue. For the national side of the coins, coins from Latvia are fine per {{Latvian coins}}, while coins from Finland probably are fine per {{PD-FinlandGov}}. Lithuania will introduce the euro on 1 January 2015, and Lithuanian euro coins will be fine per {{PD-LT-exempt}}. The national side of the coins from other countries are not fine, and can't be uploaded to Commons without OTRS permission from the copyright holders. The list above does not cointain any coins from Finland, Latvia or Lithuania. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I asked if I could use the images to write an article in wikipedia and they answered "yes, you can if it is not detrimental to the image of the euro". The use of the image, as I used it, is not detrimental in ANY WAY to the euro. It's not a parody either. Yes I see it has been discused but I think it's a mistake. It can't be that the BCE itself says that the images can be used and we delete them based on interpretations. --Philloven (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Commons requires that all images hosted here are free for any use by anybody anywhere. Your WP article may be perfectly all right with the Bank, but that is not enough to keep it here -- they must be OK with any use, even parody, which, obviously, they are not. You can probably use the images on WP:EN for a single article under Fair Use, but they cannot be kept here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Krd 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (10 euro)
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons.
- File:2005 nationalpark bayerischer wald bildseite.jpg
- File:2005 nationalpark bayerischer wald wertseite.jpg
- File:5 Euro Coin, "Sagen aus Österreich - Der Basilisk" backside.jpg
- File:5 Euro Coin, "Sagen aus Österreich - Der Basilisk" frontside.jpg
- File:Erzberg10euro-RS.jpg
- File:Erzberg10euro-VS.jpg
- File:Koningstientje.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dafür hätte ich gerne einen Beleg, dass eine Darstellung der Münzen nicht erlaubt ist. Als Schutz vor Fälschungen kann ich es mir nicht vorstellen, da ich da lieber die Originale aus der eigenen Brieftasche nehmen würde. --K@rl (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Weitere Frage:Warum ist dann beispielsweise File:2006 650 jahre staedtehanse wertseite.jpg nicht verboten? --K@rl (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that derivative works of these coins are not allowed (see COM:EURO). The commemorative coins will be nominated for deletion later. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- These coins also commemorative coins. --K@rl (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where you see the national right for Austrian coins - which is responsible for the national side? --K@rl (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- One question more: From EU side is authorized: which has determined that reproduction in a format without relief (e.g. drawing, pictures), provided that they are not detrimental to the image of the euro, is authorised --K@rl (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but in german: die nationale Seite ist ein 3-D Kunstwerk im öffentlichen Raum und das darf man in Österreich 2D abbilden.
- One question more: From EU side is authorized: which has determined that reproduction in a format without relief (e.g. drawing, pictures), provided that they are not detrimental to the image of the euro, is authorised --K@rl (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Where you see the national right for Austrian coins - which is responsible for the national side? --K@rl (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- These coins also commemorative coins. --K@rl (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that derivative works of these coins are not allowed (see COM:EURO). The commemorative coins will be nominated for deletion later. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Weitere Frage:Warum ist dann beispielsweise File:2006 650 jahre staedtehanse wertseite.jpg nicht verboten? --K@rl (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Again, permssion that does not inlcude the right to make parodies is not free enough for Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (1 euro)
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons.
- File:" 02 - ITALY - 1 € Italia - Vitruvian Man - Uomo vitruviano - Leonardo da Vinci - 1euro.jpg
- File:1 euro coin Es serie 1.png
- File:1 Euro coin Es.gif
- File:1 euro coin Es.jpg
- File:1 euro coin Sm serie 1.png
- File:1 Euro coin Sm.gif
- File:1 euro coin Sm.jpg
- File:1 euro Italia 2002.png
- File:1 EURO ITALY 2009.JPG
- File:1 euro Spain.png
- File:30-mg-mxe-euro.jpg
- File:50 Jahre Deutsche Bundesbank - Sondermarke.jpg
- File:Austria 1e.PNG
- File:Billetetranviaparla.JPG
- File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d and euro.png
- If the deletion can not be avoided (see my comment below) I could replace the inset picture of the coin with some type of rough sketch of the coin to show the size relation and the measurement location. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Eliche-Nr-56-A.jpg
- File:Eliche-Nr-56-C.jpg
- File:Eliche-Nr-56-D.jpg
- File:Eliche-Nr-56-F.jpg
- File:Eliche-Nr-56.jpg
- File:Euro675.jpg
- File:GastrocoptaPellucidaHrdcla1.jpg
- File:Graining.JPG
- File:Grece 1 euro.jpg
- File:Lancer pile ou face.jpg
- File:Latvian 1 Euro coin design.jpg
- File:Lepista saeva 1.jpg
- File:MicroSD.jpg
- File:One Euro - white bg.jpg
- File:Pièce Malte 1€.gif
- File:Slovakia 1 euro.jpg
- File:Spherical silicon.jpg
- File:Tire-Euro-OK.JPG
- File:Uang 5.jpeg
Eleassar (t/p) 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Several of these are already listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (Slovakia). It may be confusing to have two separate deletion requests which discuss the same files. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I've removed them from this list. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Euro in File:MicroSD.jpg might just get cropped away. --Leyo 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am not convinced that the 2-dimensional depiction of a 3-dimensional registered design like a coin is a violation of the authors copyright. Since a coin is definitely 3-dimensional, a photography of the coin should therefore not violate the copyright in my oppinion. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I found a statement on the reproduction of common sides of Euro coins here [12]: "Only the following reproductions are allowed: reproductions in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided that they are not detrimental to the image of the euro. ..." In my oppinion this gives us the freedom to use reproductions of the common side! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2: we can't host these images because derivative works are not allowed. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Eleassar, I have read the discussion you cited and can not see why these pictures have been deleted. There where a lot of convincing arguments to keep the pictures. To me it is completely unclear why the deletion has been performed. Sorry to roll up the old thread, but I am not convinced about the deletion yet. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The coins must be reproduced in "faithful likeness" and can't be reproduced in a way "detrimental to the image of the euro", which means that only a limited set of derivative works is allowed. For us, images must be free for any purpose and all derivatives must be allowed. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the arguments from "Orionist ★ talk 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)" in this thread, I do not see a violation to our guidelines. Also counting the votes in the cited thread I don't see a majority for deletion. I still wonder why this happened. Sorry to insist on this subject, but these images would be of great value for us. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not a majority vote. The permission for example doesn't permit parodies of the coins, so you can't e.g. add a moustache to the w:Vitruvian Man on the Italian coins. Specific problems with some of the images:
- {{Money-EU}} can only be used for banknotes, not coins.
- There needs to be a separate copyright tag for the photograph, and the photograph needs to be identified.
- File:Famas cartouche01.jpg and File:Famas cartouche02.jpg: Only the original uploader has been identified, but the photographer is unknown. The coins are hardly visible, though, so I don't think that you can claim that the copyright to the coins is violated in these images. Maybe User:Bloody-libu, who deleted the files on French Wikipedia, can identify the photographer somehow, if this is specified on the file information page on French Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- "photographie prise le 25 août 2004 par YannTech" : the original uploader is the photographer. Bloody-libu (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not a majority vote. The permission for example doesn't permit parodies of the coins, so you can't e.g. add a moustache to the w:Vitruvian Man on the Italian coins. Specific problems with some of the images:
- Regarding the arguments from "Orionist ★ talk 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)" in this thread, I do not see a violation to our guidelines. Also counting the votes in the cited thread I don't see a majority for deletion. I still wonder why this happened. Sorry to insist on this subject, but these images would be of great value for us. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The coins must be reproduced in "faithful likeness" and can't be reproduced in a way "detrimental to the image of the euro", which means that only a limited set of derivative works is allowed. For us, images must be free for any purpose and all derivatives must be allowed. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Eleassar, I have read the discussion you cited and can not see why these pictures have been deleted. There where a lot of convincing arguments to keep the pictures. To me it is completely unclear why the deletion has been performed. Sorry to roll up the old thread, but I am not convinced about the deletion yet. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2: we can't host these images because derivative works are not allowed. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission that prohibits parodies and other kinds of derivative works is not free enough for Commons. I kept tha confocal measurement because the focus of the image is the star and the coin is thre only incidently, and, given the specialized use, it is unlikely that anyone will want to make a DW. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Euro coins (1 euro)
Unfree coins. Also artwork which isn't installed permanently in one of them.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
'Fasnacht' chariot, i.e. being a folclorical element, Roland zh 21:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Also artwork which isn't installed permanently in what? This delition request is not understandable. What is meant whith "one of them"? At least File:Son Servera 03 ies.jpg is permanently installed in public along with other murals in Son Servera. Compare particularly to File:Son Servera 01 ies.jpg. In my opinion all these murals are clearly covered by FoP. -- Ies (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep see File:Son Servera 01 ies.jpg and {{FoP-Spain}}. Holger1959 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
1 Deleted, 2 Kept as per Holger1959. Yann (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (1 euro)
[edit]Per com:currency euro coins are non free
- File:1 euro 1999 francia.jpg
- File:Austrian 1 euro.png
File:Chocolate euro coin at Christmas (3090213227).jpg- File:Deutsch 1-Euro-Münze.jpg
- File:Estonia 1 euro coin.jpg
File:N22978 1 eur Lietuva 2015.jpgKept for now, needs discussion whether the knight depicted is a state symbol or not. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)- File:Son Servera 03 ies.jpg <- covered by FOP Spain. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Strobocoin (4072962364).jpgNo coin design visible, can't be a copyvio. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the chocolate coin, it's a parody and so can be considered against protected against copyright claims. It may fail scope, maybe, but that's not the nomination. --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- That one should be com:PACKAGING than but I will withdraw that one because we should discuss that in a seperate DR. Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep File:Son Servera 03 ies.jpg. Note that this image does NOT show a coin. It shows an artistic and stylised painting of a coin. Distinguish between the non free coins and their artistic depictions that, for instance when covered by FoP, are free!
- It is a derivative work of the original coin: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as [...] art reproduction, [...] or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted". BrightRaven (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is Russavia. Keep File:Strobocoin (4072962364).jpg. It isn't infringing in any way on any design, and it's in use, and can also be used to illustrate photographic effects. RRTyne (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Some kept, some deleted: The kept decision is only preliminary. The kept files may be subject to another DR Euro coins by issuing country. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (200 euro)
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (50 euro)
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (Spain)
[edit]Derivative works of coins. Some of these images have a copyright tag which tells that you can use images of banknotes in certain situations, but coins are not banknotes, so that copyright tag isn't applicable here. Some of these images lack evidence of permission from the photographers, which is required for currency images according to COM:ART.
- File:1 euro es 2010.PNG
- File:1 euro Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:1, 2, 5 cents es 2010.PNG
- File:10 euro cents Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:10, 50 cents es 2010.PNG
- File:2 euro cents Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:2 euro es 2010.PNG
- File:20 cents es 2010.PNG
- File:20 euro cents Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:5 euro cents Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:50 euro cents Spain serie 2.jpg
- File:Undetermined Trilobita.2 - Ordovícico superior.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (Spain)
[edit]Missing permission from the engraver.
- File:1 céntimo de euro españolas.jpg
- File:12 euros 2004 1.JPG
- File:12 euros 2004 2.JPG
- File:1centspagna.jpg
- File:20cent-spagna.jpg
- File:5-eurocent-spain-2010.jpg
- File:50-eurocent-spain-2010.jpg
- File:5cent-spagna.jpg
- File:Moneda de 1 céntimo de euro España 1999 - 2009.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mercury City Tower
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russian Federation.
- File:10-11-2010 Mercury city tower.JPG
- File:Mercury City Tower in the cloud.jpg
- File:Mercury City Tower.jpg
- File:Mercury Tower in Moscow-City 28-03-2010.jpg
- File:MIBC 11th May, 2013.jpg
- File:MIBC 12th September 2012 cropped.jpg
- File:Меркурий сити тауэр на фоне остального Москва-сити.jpg
BaseSat (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahad bappy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:Ahad (9).jpg
- File:Ahad (8).jpg
- File:Ahad (7).jpg
- File:Ahad (5).jpg
- File:Ahad (6).jpg
- File:Ahad (4).jpg
- File:Ahad (3).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ali Ahmadinasab (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uncategorized, unused images. The Commons is not a personal web host. --Rsberzerker (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Low quality selfies.
-mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We have better pictures. Low quality and not educationally useful. --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've restored the bottom one because it was in use at de.wiki. INeverCry 19:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: All of them seem to be copyvios from http://motherless.com/g/teen_scene_world_wide/1E42369.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arshav Arora (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Barbarajohnson2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of fan/promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:CK Morgan With Backing Dancers.jpg
- File:CK Morgan On Set.jpg
- File:CK Morgan.jpg
- File:CK Morgan D2S Photoshootin.jpg
- File:CK Morgan Photoshooting.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of these are sourced to a website whereas other ones are listed as own work, but all look similar, so it is likely that all of them come from the same source. Some of them are possibly below the threshold of originality, but they all seem to be out of scope.
- File:Metabolismo metanol en primates y roedores.jpg
- File:Metabolismometanol.jpg
- File:THF-metanol.png
- File:Metanol primates.gif
- File:Metabolismo metanol.gif
Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Christopherkent (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying around 45 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different Panoramio-/Flickr-accounts,skyscrapercity.com, blogs etc. all this with an arsenal of different digicams) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user (already blocked in 2009 due to repeated copyvio, around 60-70 uploads deleted) uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
Ignoring:
available in high res with exif SONY DSC-W350, which (sometimes) were previously published at (e.g.) http://chriszeekent.blogspot.de/2010/08/madam-kwanpavilion-kl.html (11.08.2010) = .jpg versus File:Nasilemak mademkwan.JPG (21.08.2010). http://chriszeekent.blogspot.de is similar to user´s name Christopherkent but if you see also these files problematic, nuke them all.
- File:Imbistationplatform.jpg
- File:Hangtuahsign.jpg
- File:Kualakububharuktmstation.jpg
- File:Jongker Chicken Rice Ball.JPG
- File:Angkukueh.jpg
- File:Insidetelukintantower.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dinesh Sajnani (talk · contribs)
[edit]These look like photos from some campaign, publication or other commercial source. Unlikely own work by the uploader. File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 1.jpg appears on numerous websites.
- File:Ayaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 4.jpg
- File:Ayaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 2.jpg
- File:Ayaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 3.jpg
- File:Ayaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 1.jpg
- File:Ayaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot.jpg
- File:Khan Brothers at a Photoshoot.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 3.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 4.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 5.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 1.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot.jpg
- File:Amaan Ali Khan at a Photoshoot 2.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Very dubious own work claims. Everything by this user seems to be copied from somewhere.
- File:Peto menahem 01.jpg
- File:Escudo-Toay.jpg
- File:Realico-Escudo.jpg
- File:QuemuQuemu-Escudo.jpg
- File:Escudo-Santa-Rosa.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Franklin Morales J (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or self-promotion. Unused images.
- File:Zhamir.jpg
- File:Veinte poemas.jpg
- File:La fiesta de los cuentos.jpg
- File:Libro de magia.jpg
- File:Galeon II.jpg
- File:Galeon I.jpg
- File:Ciudad de canela.jpg
- File:Antonio morales.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 05.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 06.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 07.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 03.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 04.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 02.jpg
- File:Ceci.Krasimirova 01.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaywilliams808 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Many of these show images from numerous different Facebook accounts. Not all accounts can belong to the uploader. All images are also out of scope.
- File:Ho 2013-12-04 06-30.png
- File:Luk 2013-12-04 06-30.png
- File:Tree 2013-12-04 06-30.png
- File:Lik 2013-12-04 06-29.png
- File:On j 2013-12-04 06-29.png
- File:Luke Skywalker 2013-12-04 06-27.png
- File:Selens 2013-12-04 06-27.png
- File:Ok 2013-12-04 06-26.png
- File:Lik carp s tashe sailes 2013-12-04 06-21.png
- File:Tashe tawaun jones sailes 2013-12-04 06-20.jpg
- File:Yom mfog daf tzo party 2013-11-25 03-40.png
- File:Mike book ia 2013-11-24 02-57.jpeg
- File:Tamy like 2013-11-24 02-55.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mano euskero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcin2014-91 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisements. Out of scope and presumed copyvio.
- File:Są osoby, których problemy są również Twoimi problemami.jpg
- File:Związek jest jak domek z kart.jpg
- File:Ile dałbym, by zapomnieć Cię.jpg
- File:W prawdziwym związku nie ma czasu na skok w bok.jpg
- File:Są ludzie którzy, znaczą DUŻO WIĘCEJ niż trochę.jpg
- File:W życiu piękne są tylko chwile.jpg
- File:Kocham wszystko co jest z nim związane.jpg
- File:Moje marzenie świąteczne.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcosalbero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historic photos of Spanish band es:Numen (grupo). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. File:Primera formación de Numen.JPG previous published via (example) http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=271 = http://www.progarchives.com/progressive_rock_discography_band/Numen.jpg (last modified: 2006, b&w) or from (ex-) official site = archive (2004, most likely that File:Sala Arniches.jpg was grabbed too from this archive).
Gunnex (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Historic images. Not own work. Some possibly {{PD-old}}, but there is insufficient information to verify this.
- File:Bataille de Cambrai.jpg
- File:Bataille de Somme-Py.jpg
- File:Ligne Hindenburg.jpg
- File:Général MAISTRE.jpg
- File:Bataille du Chesne et de Buzancy.jpg
- File:Bataille de la Selle et de la Serre.jpg
- File:Ligne Hindenburg (1918).jpg
- File:Bataille de St-Mihiel (1918).jpg
- File:3e bataille de Picardie (1918).jpg
- File:Offensive du 15 juillet 1918 sur la Marne.jpg
- File:Offensive du 15 juillet 1918 en Champagne.jpg
- File:Coeuvres-1918.gif
- File:Victor, baron d'Urbal.jpg
- File:Bataille de l'Artois (mai 1915).jpg
- File:Général Blondlat.jpg
- File:Général PASSAGA.jpg
- File:Bataille de Verdun (1917).jpg
- File:Joseph Pourcet.jpg
- File:Farre Jean Joseph.jpg
- File:Sarrebruck-1870.jpg
- File:Bat.Sarrebruck.png
- File:Bataille de Spicheren.jpg
- File:Campagne de Macédoine (1916).jpg
- File:Front en Macédoine (1918).png
- File:Beaumont-Mouzon.png
- File:Attaque de Beaumont.png
- File:Troupes à Beaumont.png
- File:Passage de la Meuse.png
- File:Marche vers l'est du 5e corps.png
- File:Garde nationale.png
- File:Combat de Longeau.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shalinibgl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own work is very unlikely. All the other uploads of the user are clear case of copyvio.
BrightRaven (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Professional looking shots missing EXIF data. Leaves a lot of doubt these are "own work". --Rsberzerker (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope.
Stefan4 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stanslibro (talk · contribs)
[edit]These seem to be non-free film images, based on how they are used in ru:Частное пионерское.
.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}
Stefan4 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stanslibro (talk · contribs)
[edit]The artist (w:Feodor Stepanovich Rojankovsky) died in 1970.
- File:«Дневник фокса Микки».jpg
- File:«Мишка» серии «Альбомы папаши Бобра».jpg
- File:I-Play-at-the-Beach-1955.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vikashkumargaurav (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Political hate speech. Nguyen1310 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: ? FASTILY 23:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted interface of Google Earth JurgenNL (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- You see parts of the interface of the programma as well. This programma is probadly made by Esri and isnot released under a compateble license. Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, the information isnot from google maps. The problem lies with the interface of the programme. Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The clearly visible image caption says, quote: "USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office." I believe, USDA stands for "US Department of Agriculture," FSA stands for "Farm Service Agency," APFO stands for "Aerial Photography Field Office." As far as I know, these organizations are purely governmental bodies, and they are not affiliated with Google Corporation. — George Serdechny 11:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that cropping the file will be enough. The photographs are free, indeed. But the software used to adapt the data isnot in the public domain so all elements on the printscreen related to the software should be removed. Natuur12 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly unfree content removed from the image. — George Serdechny 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm strange. The link to the source document doesn't work. If the link is fixed it should be okey. Even withhout the link it is clear that this is a work of the federal government of the US. Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's a copy without the commercial toolbar. Here's the link: http://avedemo.giiep.us/selwyn/NGB_GIIEP_Brief.pdf . — George Serdechny 12:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm strange. The link to the source document doesn't work. If the link is fixed it should be okey. Even withhout the link it is clear that this is a work of the federal government of the US. Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: fixed it seems FASTILY 23:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Café/Archivo
I'm the owner of the copyright of this photo and I have not licensed it for distribution. Sorry. Carlos Alejandro Lavers Hernández. edcharly@gmail.com 193.148.96.129 14:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that this is out of the project scope per the "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." exclusion on that page. I am not going to speedy delete it, however, as I've already speedy deleted a related image used by the same user (Douglas the Comeback Kid, see warning on his talk page), and consider myself too involved to speedy a second. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I have to agree as it is really, not in the scope of Wikimedia Commons. As Sven Manguard has said. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Sven. While an inverted flag might be interesting or illustrative in some contexts and for some purposes, it appears to have been created and uploaded, and is used, solely as a means of criticizing the PRC. That's not the purpose of Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We had similar situation here and the consensus was to keep. That case was even stronger, as File:Anti Poland.png is much more obviously anti-Polish than this file being anti-Chinese. File:Anti Poland.png was also exclusively used to attack Poland, and it was still kept. We should have the same standard for both China and Poland. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have to agree with the argument above. Please also check File:Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg and many of the other files in Category:SVG Anti logos. Why should users be allowed to say they are anti nazi, anti EU or anti USA but not anti chineese? --MGA73 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Anti-Nazi logo is within project scope because of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. An inverted American flag would also be within project scope as it has significant historical use in that manner (as a sign of distress, or as a common sign of protest). An anti-EU symbol, I'm not as certain of, but only because I'm not particularly familiar with the history of opposition to the EU. Nonetheless, a key difference here is that this particular image was uploaded to Commons for the purpose of and is solely used for making political attacks. As for the anti-Poland flag, or other crossed-out flags, it doesn't appear in that prior discussion (more than five years ago) this particular point of policy was raised (if it was even available at the time). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaded for the sole purpose of making attacks/vandalism. Not ok on Commons, or on any other WMF project for that matter FASTILY 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
We have the coat of arms in SVG. Adding the text below, if necessary, should be an easy process. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The image represents and depicts the national seal of Ghana (i.e. Seal of Ghana with the inscription Republic of Ghana and with alternate green background and coloring) and should not be confused with a coat of arms and the coat of arms of Ghana in SVG. Le Sabre (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that, but as I said, it can be made into SVG if we need it. How about we make a graphic lab request, and that way we will have this in SVG? I will even make the request for you. Fry1989 eh? 18:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
the same as this one: File:Klingspor_Museum.jpg Offenbacherjung (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have to use {{Duplicate}} for this case. Tagged. --레비Revi 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be resolved FASTILY 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded by Hoodr (talk · contribs) in 2011. Unlikely to be own work. Exif-info indicates to author/copyrights = "Sean Arbabi / Arbabi Imagery" and the file was previoulsy published (even in lower res) in 2009 on school´s official Facebook = https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=174272553402&set=a.445367603402.233422.11557588402&type=3&theater. Permission from "Sean Arbabi" needed. Gunnex (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Info moving comment of Hoodr to here: "As the Director of Marketing for Cañada College, I hired Sean Arbabi to take the photos that we have used on our Wikipedia page. As a public institution, these are public photos.". PS: Robert Hood was director of that college in July 2001 – July 2012... Gunnex (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Likely a violation of the copyright of the photographer of the depicted portrait-shot. As this poster seems to be temporary, it likely doesn't fall under freedom-of-panorama exemption. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Turelio - thanks for the heads-up. This image is extremely important for public interest purposes, especially now as the wiki entry it complements is a very, very hot political topic. Can you advise me on how to retain it? What percentage of a panorama would be permissible, for example? Could it compose 75% or 50% of a panorama image?
- Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivak (talk • contribs)
- IMO the only problematic part is the portrait. However, as with many freedom-of-panorama cases, it depends on many factors. I would recommend you to involve an experienced Czech admin-collague (either from Commons or from :cz) and discuss with him, whether the conditions as laid out in Commons:FOP#Czech_Republic are eventually met. The only other alternative I see, would be to identify the photographer of the head-shot and ask him/her for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 23:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
double commons-page (Serinus canaria domestica) Dinosaur918 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The distortion is extreme and so it's an unrealistic depiction of this cityscape, unused, no potential usage -> out of Commons scope. (Derivative of my photos without prior asking for advice) A.Savin 08:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pas de souci pour moi, cet assemblage peut être supprimé.François de Dijon (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Distortion is typical for panoramas. Many of WP's city articles have similar images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Re-nomination. Again, this file is out of Commons scope. It is not being used anywhere, nor is it likely to ever be. The distortion is extreme and so it's an unrealistic depiction of this cityscape. It is a derivative of some of my photos (which aren't appropriate for stitching together) without prior asking for advice. Prior RfD was closed as kept although there was a consensus for deletion. Discussion with the closing admin is useless. --A.Savin 19:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing new here. If A. Savin wishes, he or she can remove the attribution from the file, but cannot control DW from CC files. The creator of this image has no obligation whatsoever to ask A. Savin for advice. This is a usable panorama of a large city and may well find a use somewhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as it is out of COM:SCOPE which admin "Jameslwoodward" fails to see. --A.Savin 12:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I broke my eyes looking at that. Unfortunally it's terrible forgery, not a panorama which can be useful for Commons. I'd be never placed such illustrations to any article. Jameslwoodward, did you read "Inverted World" by Christopher Priest? This picture reminds me about Priest's novel (but again, not as illustration :)). --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the author of the DW agreed to delete, the author of the original works ask fro deletion, ans finally the distortion is too high for the image to be usable (except maybe for a « don't do panoramas like that » page on Wikibooks). Why on Earth should we keep this file ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Jim that we can't restrict people from making adaptations. An admin should be a model so can't enjoy special considerations. But I see that the adapter agreed to delete it even without showing any discomfort. So I think this is a perfect candidate for Commons:Courtesy deletions. See Samuel's comment there: "Courtesy dictates that all unused / marginally-used images should be deleted on the author's request....Letting a few dozen creators each year delete their images won't hurt Commons. But unfriendliness will, and has." We can be more friendlier here. :) Jee 08:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour à tous, je ne voulais irriter personne en faisant cet assemblage. J'en ai déjà effectuer plusieurs, certains avec plus de succès et des remerciements de l'auteur des fichiers sources. Il y en a eu de repris comme illustration sur des pages de Wikipédia. Si celui ci est si horrible (low quality a été mis sur la page...) vous pouvez l'effacer, cela ne me rendra pas malade et évitera une dispute des différents intervenants.François de Dijon (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, François de Dijon, for your understanding; always appreciated. Jee 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour à tous, je ne voulais irriter personne en faisant cet assemblage. J'en ai déjà effectuer plusieurs, certains avec plus de succès et des remerciements de l'auteur des fichiers sources. Il y en a eu de repris comme illustration sur des pages de Wikipédia. Si celui ci est si horrible (low quality a été mis sur la page...) vous pouvez l'effacer, cela ne me rendra pas malade et évitera une dispute des différents intervenants.François de Dijon (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per above -FASTILY 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (5 euro)
[edit]Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (1 cent) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents): the euro coins (both the national sides and the common side) are copyrighted and not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, just ignore the CC-BY-Zero policy of the Ducht government... either make this a speedy deletion or wait untill I can tell you to keep or delete, as I'll ask the government what their official policy is whit THEIR images, as THEY have placed these images under a CC-BY-Zero on THEIR website. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently gradients exceed the threshold of originality. Thoughts? -FASTILY 10:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The gradient is very basic, does not exceed the ToO in my opinion. - Fma12 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn/procedural close for now. I'll be creating a proper group nom in the near future -FASTILY 09:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not eligible for PD, see en:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly eligible to PD per {{pd-text}} for the text and
{{pd-shape}}for the logo. Also this image as already survived a first DR claiming the same arguments. Tm (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept per discussion and previous closure. --Krd 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pierpao as Copyvio (copyviol) and the most recent rationale was: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows XP Logo 2.svg Yann (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: this logo is simpler than the other file nominated for deletion. Already two DRs resolved as kept. So no copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly eligible to PD per {{pd-text}} for the text and
{{pd-shape}}for the logo. Also this image as already survived a two DR claiming almost the same arguments. Tm (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) - Keep looks like pd-text --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – as you already know, the decision referenced in the "Permission" field of the {{Information}} template was overturned and the referenced entry at Commons:Threshold of originality#Commons decisions was removed. This does not appear to be simpler. For the same reasons, File:Windows Server 2003 logo and wordmark.png and File:Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2.png should probably go as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Identical to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Windows XP Logo 2.svg, which closed as delete. People seem to have forgotten that the United States doesn't use the w:sweat of the brow doctrine. It is irrelevant if the image is simple to make; it is the creative input which matters. You need to make lots of artistic choices to make an image like this. These artistic choices are a lot more creative than the ones needed to create the second "CCC" logo in this PDF file, which the United States Copyright Office found to be sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It's not simply that artistic choices were made -- that does not necessarily make something copyrightable -- but to me the graphic side of things is above the threshold. Even without the gradients I'm not sure that is a "simple shape" to begin with -- four squares would be simple, but adding particular curves can change things. And it's not necessarily a simple gradient there either, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The shadows and gradients put this logo clearly above the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as per Carl L. Yann (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Reopening: the sculpture by Salvador Dali (d. 1989) is a key part of the composition and as such not de minimis ("very unlikely" per COM:DM#Examples). Eleassar (t/p) 11:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- A decision already exists regarding this picture. Please respect it. This is harassment, I request solemnly the "re-opener" to stop this. Enough is enough. One cannot ask again and again until one find a "friendly delete" admin.--Jebulon (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- See previous DR just closed. In my knowledge, asking the closing admin prior to make further DR is the right procedure. I didn't see such a discussion on Fastily's talk page. JKadavoor Jee 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep « Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum » --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Abusive reopening. Yann (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reopened per AN thread. IMO this is not exactly a clear cut case, and certainly merits at least some discussion. -FASTILY 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per above and the opinion by Rillke at the linked AN page. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep there is clear caselaw on very similar issue in France (Louvre pyramide), probably not DM if this photo would have been taken somewhere else. I've just googled a bit, as it seems the only heir of Dali's artwork is the Spanish state [13] and not a U.S. resident, therefore should be either OK considering COM:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law --A.Savin 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- In contrast to the image of the square, this "composition of architecture, tree and barrels" could be taken without including the sculpture. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh really? Looking at the picture (+ geocode), I've the impression that there are at most three, four meters left from the sculpture to the tree. Not many people have a 180° fisheye lens, as you might know. --A.Savin 18:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You don't need a fisheye lens, you just need to step a bit to the right. The architecture (e.g. the arched entrance) becomes even better visible this way. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Invalid reopening by Fastily: i was not noticed of this third (THIRD!!!) deletion request !--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete not de minimis & bad contrast (or camera issues?) imo. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- "not de minimis"= opinion. "Bad contrast" = irrelevant here. "If what you have to say is not more beautiful than silence, then remain silent". Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- A very weak delete, I think. I agree with Fastily that this is a very close call and deserves considerable discussion. I think the sculpture is large enough that it is a problem, but only barely so. Note that the first category mentions the sculpture. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again: the reopening of this case is invalid.--Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any basis for any claim that this is invalid, particularly since Fastily has agreed above that it is a good idea. Your criticism of User:Zhuyifei1999 is out of line. The issue here is whether the sculpture is de minimis or not. That is a subjective matter and is naturally an opinion. Zhuyifei1999's opinion has as much validity here as any of ours -- certainly as much as yours since he or she has roughly the same number of edits on Commons as do you. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- ????
- And so what ? Your comment is out of line. Where is the link between the respective number of edits on "Commons" and this (pseudo) third deletion request (invalid, because I'm not officially aware of, I own only two warnings on my talk page !) ? So I repeat: to claim "not de minimis" is only an opinion, and does not add anything more than simple silence, sorry. Arguments should have been interesting. Anyway, frankly, I don't care about this (very poor) picture. I just want to see how far ridicule will lead us. Please notice that I did not start anything in this "affair".
- Now, I'll go home soon (6.30pm here), and open a good bottle of "Château de Pommard" (far much better and not to be confused with the simple "Pommard"), and drink it slowly (not all the bottle, and not alone !) after a warm toast to all my friends of "Commons" ! Cheers !--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand -- if you believe that opinions cannot be expressed, how do we decide de minimis? All DM decisions are based on the opinions of the community, nothing more.
- As for the notice -- an Admin can reopen a discussion without issuing a new notice. Obviously it was not necessary since you are here.
- Enjoy your wine -- depending on vintage, that could be a pricey to a very expensive bottle over here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jim, you miss the point and humor here.
- "[A]n Admin can reopen a discussion without issuing a new notice." - May be without a formal "warrant style" notice; but must inform the affected user by a comment on talk page, at least. "You are here" is just an excuse.
- "bad contrast (or camera issues?) imo" - This is a COM:DR; not COM:QIC.
- "he or she has roughly the same number of edits on Commons as do you" - Edit count is not the last word for all. Compare this with this.
- But I won't say this file can't be deleted with a bottle of "Château de Pommard". :) Jee 04:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Enjoy your wine -- depending on vintage, that could be a pricey to a very expensive bottle over here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Let's see, you could delete it and a lot more by pouring the bottle into the server? Waste of good wine -- alcohol abuse!
- Of course a notice is polite, but I don't think it's essential in a reopening because the DR will be in your watchlist. That works, although it's not perfect because watchlists are pretty much unmanageable.
- And, of course edit counts are not the final word, particularly since you have many more in the Commons: space where things like this are discussed. But, you have to admit that a colleague with 35,000 edits should not be dismissed as if his opinion was worthless.
- Enough of this -- I enjoy the sparring, but we both have better things to do. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Jim: Of course, a notice when opening or reopening a DR is essential. Yann (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete the copyright sculpture is a key part of the picture and given the images only use in any project is in relation to the sculpture it can not be considered DM. LGA talkedits 20:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- No more, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM, if the scupture were not here, the picture would still be useful (the sculpture can be cropped or blurred if needed, but I hope it won't be needed to see the file kept). Jeriby (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to overturn de minimis and to justify deletion Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
